Sure, and with the extra benefit that you wouldn't have to expose your
code to end-users.
That is, unless there's a way to include SoS in a standalone that
includes encryption, such as an automated method in the Standalone Builder.
I couldn't find one, but it seems like such a pervasive issue for the
class of devs most likely to use SoS (pros dependent on VCS) that I'm
hoping I just missed something.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Jacque wrote:
> Wouldn't a binary script-only stack be the library stack we already
> have now?
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
>
> On January 14, 2020 9:55:01 AM Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> Since script-only stacks contain only a script with no properties,
>> they have no password property, and thus cannot be encrypted.
>>
>> I had thought that including them in the Stacks pane of the
>> Standalone Builder might convert them to binary substacks, where
>> the password could apply. No dice.
>>
>> Is it a bug that script-only stacks can't be imported into the
>> stackfile to become binary substacks?
>>
>> --
>> Richard Gaskin
>> Fourth World Systems
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
