Re: Detecting the Eu version
Igor Kachan wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> [very big snip]
>
>>> Described way, author can detect *any* concrete version of Euphoria,
>>> where his program *can not run*.
>>> Then it is just an author's problem - to stop his program with
>>> a warning message or to give user a standard crash message without
>>> any additional explanations.
>>
>> No. The problem that I described happens at compile-time (with Eu 2.5
>> and later), so it can't be solved by anything that happens at run-time.
>> Whatever code you'll write in this regard -- it will never be executed,
>> because the program crashes beforehand.
>
> You can not run some new code with some old interpreters.
> OK, you'll get an error message to understand what happend.
> Who cares is it at run-time or at compile-time?
That is an important difference. E.g. I do care about it. If you had
read my original post until the end, you probably would know.
> Old interpreters have mixed run/compile time for the top
> level statements. See ex.err file, update your Euphoria
> and you are all set.
>
> So, the critical case is some old not bound code with some new
> interpreters.
No, you did not understand what I wrote.
> The only way is to update that some *old code* for some *new interpreter*.
> Remember please your efforts on "dynamic inclusion".
Thanks, I have no problems regarding my memory. This is a different
issue, you simply don't understand it.
>>> So, I just didn't see some "gap", as you say in the part of your
>>> message, that I have snipped off.
>>> I snipped that part, where I have nothing to say or comment, sorry,
>>> that was just usual practice, I think.
>>
>> You snipped the part that contained my question, and you "answered"
>> something that I didn't ask.
>
> Your main question was about something like a version() function,
> as far as I can see, of course.
Take your time and read my original post from the beginning to the end,
*if* you actually want to know what I wrote. That post is understandable
indeed. I certainly will not try to explain you over and over again what
I wrote. With your first reply, when you snipped my question and
"answered" something that I didn't ask, it was already obvious that we
have different understandings of what meaningful communication is (to
say the least). So this "discussion" is finished for me.
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
--
Get your facts first, and then
you can distort 'em as you please.
[Mark Twain]
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
