Full support for executionContexts (was Re: Which stack called the library stack ?)

Dar Scott dsc at swcp.com
Fri Sep 24 20:08:22 EDT 2010


On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
...
>> By removing the offending paragraph in the executionContexts
>> dictionary entry, RunRev would effectively be making a commitment to
>> including descriptions of any changes to the value in the engine
>> revision report for new versions.  Or at least apply as much
>> diligence in doing so as they would for any other property.
>
>> I think this is a reasonable thing to ask for.
>
> I, on the other hand, think that reserving the right to make changes
> to the format is a good thing. And given that, I think the warning
> paragraph in the documentation is to the point: "go ahead and use
> this, but note that the format may change in the future". But I do
> like your first suggestion, that RunRev bless and document the format.
> Since it's the only way to get this information, telling people to use
> it seems a bit dodgy, even though it *is* listed in the docs.

Oh, I think reserving the right to make changes is good, too, but  
only to the extent that the right to make changes to 'the detail  
folders' is reserved.  If the format of either of these is changed, a  
reasonable effort to document the change and even give warning of the  
change should be made.

I give caveats to my customers when I use experimental or explicitly  
unsupported features.  I'd rather keep that to minimum and prefer  
zero such things.  (And I minimize use of "discovered" behavior, but  
for LiveCode, use of such cannot be avoided.)

I use executionContexts in my scripts but very rarely in delivered  
product.  It is too messy and distracting to explain that I am using it.

Dar




More information about the use-livecode mailing list