OpenEuphoria

Re: Missing library

• Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Jul 15, 2004
• 818 views

On 14 Jul 2004, at 6:18, Tommy Carlier wrote:

> 
> 
> posted by: Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at pandora.be>
> 
> Kat wrote:
> > On 13 Jul 2004, at 13:07, Tommy Carlier wrote:
> > > posted by: Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at pandora.be>
> > > Pete Lomax wrote:
> > > > <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
> > > > >As it stands, not even Euphoria can programatically retrieve its own
> > > > >version, can it?
> > > > 
> > > > This has been discussed before. You can try opening a %EUINC% file,
> > > > should start with eg "-- Euphoria 2.4". But in general you are right,
> > > > there is no way to properly do this.
> > > 
> > > I have an idea for an easy-to-use/easy-to-implement versioning system for
> > > the next version(s) of Euphoria: have the interpreter set an environment
> > > variable with its version, like EUVER="2.5 beta". That way, programmers
> > > can
> > > easily access the version-info and no new function has to be created. If
> > > the
> > > variable can't be found, the program knows its version 2.4 or earlier. No
> > > extra function means backward compatibility.
> > 
> > Jeeze, you might as well say everyone hasto write code in their program to
> > check all the stuff you write to the envvars, and then update all their
> > contributions in the archives! Why not go further, and say they haveto
> > include
> > the interpreter that their app was written to use??
> > 
> > Can two play this game?
> > Kat
> 
> :D
> I really enjoyed this one. But it's not quite the same.
> 
> I wrote my sarcastic comments on your message, because you were attacking me
> while I had done nothing wrong.
> 
> You are *attempting* to write an equally sarcastic comment on my innocent
> message that is not attacking anybody, just suggesting something.
> 
> There is a big difference between your:
> > Perhaps not all the required files are included in the .zip file?
> > (*They should be*, else ...)

Ah, there's the bug. That isn't an attack, but it is a suggestion. Heck, 
consider it a strong suggestion. But it is not in any way a personal attack!

> And my:
> > *I have an idea* for an easy-to-use/easy-to-implement versioning system
> > for...

Well, looks the same to me. My idea... your idea, no attacks, just wasted 
bytes. I still abide by my suggestion, while i remember the thread about 
versioning systems people have propsed over the years, which usually 
required a extra include, and pretty much just crashed the application if the 
wrong include file (usually a win32lib version, no not an attack on Derek, this 
had been discussed before Derek took over win32lib) was not present. 
Rather like if the app had run without the versioning system. If all the code is
included in the original zip, there is no need for versioning each and every 
include (as if the author of the include complied with the mandate to supply a 
standard version line in their code they submitted 5 years ago).

Kat