|
List Info
Thread: RE: PDK 7.0 Fix?
|
|
| RE: PDK 7.0 Fix? |
 
United States |
2007-02-24 01:05:49 |
-----Original Message-----
From: pdk-bounces listserv.ActiveState.com
[mailto:pdk-bounceslistserv.ActiveState.com] On Behalf Of
Mark Dootson
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:31 PM
To: mark.dootsonznix.com
Cc: PDKlistserv.ActiveState.com; Jan Dubois
Subject: Re: PDK 7.0 Fix?
> So, PDK is using a single input value to populate all
three because
why
> would you actually want to put something different in
the
StringFileInfo
> member (unless you're MS apparantly).
It does make a certain amount of sense. Say you prefer to
number your
releases like this:
5.0
5.0a
5.0b
5.0c
5.1
5.1a
5.1b
6.0
6.0a
etc . . .
In that situation, your StringFileInfo member could read
like the above,
and you'd just use 5.0.0.0, 5.0.1.0, 5.0.2.0, 5.0.3.0,
5.1.0.0, 5.1.1.0,
etc. for the VS_FIXEDFILEINFO structure. That leaves the
VS_FIXEDFILEINFO structure in a format that computers can
easily compare
without having to have all sorts of complicated algorithms
that need to
know that the sequence goes 95, 97, 98, 2000, XP/2002, 2003,
2007 (or
4.0, 2000, XP, Vista). It lets you use human-oriented
version strings
for the string value and rigorous computer-oriented ones
for
VS_FIXEDFILEINFO, but at the expense of confusing people if
they look
too deeply.
--Toby Ovod-Everett
(Who thought about starting to number his releases in
Roman-numeral
tuples, but then realised Damian has him beat.)
_______________________________________________
PDK mailing list
PDKlistserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http:/
/listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
|
|
| RE: PDK 7.0 Fix? |
United States |
2007-02-26 11:20:42 |
|
Funny, this is exactly what I had tried to do months ago, but couldn't.
Hmmm. Interesting how I brought up a simple question, and it turned into a full-fledged discussion. LOL Thanks everyone!
Regards,
Michael Cohen
 us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for "Ovod-Everett, Toby" <TOvod-Everettalascom.att.com>">"Ovod-Everett, Toby" <TOvod-Everettalascom.att.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: pdk-bounceslistserv.ActiveState.com
[ pdk-bounceslistserv.ActiveState.com">mailto:pdk-bounceslistserv.ActiveState.com] On Behalf Of Mark Dootson
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 6:31 PM
To: mark.dootsonznix.com
Cc: PDKlistserv.ActiveState.com; Jan Dubois
Subject: Re: PDK 7.0 Fix?
> So, PDK is using a single input value to populate all three because
why
> would you actually want to put something different in the
StringFileInfo
> member (unless you're MS apparantly).
It does make a certain amount of sense. Say you prefer to number your
releases like this:
5.0
5.0a
5.0b
5.0c
5.1
5.1a
5.1b
6.0
6.0a
etc . . .
In that situation, your StringFileInfo member could read like the above,
and you'd just use 5.0.0.0, 5.0.1.0, 5.0.2.0, 5.0.3.0, 5.1.0.0, 5.1.1.0,
etc. for the VS_FIXEDFILEINFO structure. That leaves the
VS_FIXEDFILEINFO structure in a format that computers can easily compare
without having to have all sorts of complicated algorithms that need to
know that the sequence goes 95, 97, 98, 2000, XP/2002, 2003, 2007 (or
4.0, 2000, XP, Vista). It lets you use human-oriented version strings
for the string value and rigorous computer-oriented ones for
VS_FIXEDFILEINFO, but at the expense of confusing people if they look
too deeply.
--Toby Ovod-Everett
(Who thought about starting to number his releases in Roman-numeral
tuples, but then realised Damian has him beat.)
_______________________________________________
PDK mailing list
PDKlistserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
|
 |
| View Original Image |
 |
| View Original Image |
 |
| View Original Image |
[1-2]
|
|