Many thanks to all the people who answered on that topic.
On 23 Jan 2008 at 5:05, Tom Parker wrote:
> --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Maitland
> <drew0500@...> wrote:
> > > Jeez ! I was off for a while (too busy at work) and now things have
> > > all changed !
> > > Is 5.13 backwards-compatible with 5.10 data files or will I have to
> > > recode all my personal campaign stuff ?
> > >
> > PCGen 6.0 is when your 5.10 code might run into problems, but at that
> > point it will have a compatibility checker and be able to convert your
> > homebrew files to the new syntax.
> > So use whatever syntax you'd like. Glad the 1 helped you out.
> Just a clarification here:
> There are two issues: data syntax and data structure.
> The compatibility checker will do exactly what the name implies -
> check compatibility of the syntax and the structure with PCGen 6.0
> (and presumably the 6.0 data, should you be dependent upon it). *If*
> you pass the compatibility check, then it will be able to be converted
> to the syntax we settle on for PCGen 6.0.
> We are trying to support as much of the older syntax (older than 5.14)
> as we can. In the case above, a well-structured ADD:FEAT(Foo)x will
> If you use something like: ADD:FEAT(Foo
> - note the lack of a closing parenthesis - then you may end up with
> parsing problems and failing compatibility checking.
> There will also be some older tokens we can't convert, just due to
> ambiguities in their usage (and some that just don't work anymore, but
> weren't flagged as being a problem until 5.14). This will be a small
> subset - stay tuned for an early release of the compatibility checker
> in the next month or so.
> ***Important Note: If your homebrew dataset makes assumptions about
> the _structure_ of the data within PCGen and that structure is changed
> in our data (due to problems or restructuring from Ability objects or
> whatever), then you will likely encounter manual updates to your LST
> files that the compatibility checker/import tool will NOT be able to
> help you with (although it will likely detect the problem). At this
> point, I don't foresee the ability to automate structural conversions,
> due to the complex nature of such changes. I'm also unable at this
> point to say if we *have* made any structural changes that would even
> cause this to be a real issue, simply because I follow the data at
> that level of detail... one of the Data monkeys would have to address
> that question.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.