Just as many UltraEdit users out there are on different versions, for many computer languages multiple versions are still being used. In some cases, this is also true in a single location. For instance, at my location we have IDL version 7.1 on our Windows PCs but version 8.0 on our Linux workstations (and the current release is 8.4) and that is just one language. The keyword difference between versions is significant. I posted an IDL version 6.0 wordfile about 7 years ago but it was replaced with one uploaded later even though it was less up to date. There was even a time years ago when the IDL (Interactive Data Language) wordfile was replaced with an IDL (Interface Description Language) wordfile - an honest mistake but a big issue. Wordfiles are not that large and I think IDM keeps multiple versions when they have different names but there needs to be some uniform way to identify them. Perhaps an internal tag in addition to a version number in the name.
I don't know if this will be directly helpful to you, but IDM has started to keep the set of user submitted wordfiles in a github repository:
https://github.com/IDMComputerSolutions/wordfiles
If you have changes you'd like to make to the wordfiles, then I think that submitting a pull request might do the trick. Going forward if a change is made to a wordfile that ends up breaking functionality for you, having the changes in a git repo should make it pretty easy to get the working version back.
On the other hand, if IDL version 6.0 is different enough from IDL version 7.1 that it's not reasonable to have have a single wordfile which supports both versions of IDL, then in my opinion they're different languages and should have different wordfiles that are directly represented in the repo as separate files (not just different revisions of the same file).
https://github.com/IDMComputerSolutions/wordfiles
If you have changes you'd like to make to the wordfiles, then I think that submitting a pull request might do the trick. Going forward if a change is made to a wordfile that ends up breaking functionality for you, having the changes in a git repo should make it pretty easy to get the working version back.
On the other hand, if IDL version 6.0 is different enough from IDL version 7.1 that it's not reasonable to have have a single wordfile which supports both versions of IDL, then in my opinion they're different languages and should have different wordfiles that are directly represented in the repo as separate files (not just different revisions of the same file).
I agree to everything mwb1100 wrote above.
I have multiple wordfiles for various versions of Tasking C167 compiler/assembler/map files with version number not only in language name, but also in name of the wordfile as the set of keywords is different in the wordfiles depending on compiler/assembler/linker version. The wordfiles for Tasking C167 version 7.x are online available on the wordfiles download page, the others are just on my hard disk.
I have multiple wordfiles for various versions of Tasking C167 compiler/assembler/map files with version number not only in language name, but also in name of the wordfile as the set of keywords is different in the wordfiles depending on compiler/assembler/linker version. The wordfiles for Tasking C167 version 7.x are online available on the wordfiles download page, the others are just on my hard disk.
Best regards from an UC/UE/UES for Windows user from Austria
I also agree with mwb1100. For my personal use I have different versions of IDL wordfiles. It is my intent to load major versions up to IDM when I have them set the way I want. IDL has thousands of keywords and thousands more named parameters and switches.
The problem I was trying to point out (apparently not very well) is that if I should load for instance a complete IDL 7.0 wordfile, that IDM would easily allow another user to replace that wordfile by uploading one with the same name, no matter what the content or even if it was for the same language. There are no protections in place. User submitted wordfiles are an important tool and I'm not suggesting that submissions be stopped, but am asking for some method of vetting them or at least offering all submissions without replacing existing ones (with the exception of allowing an individual to replace an earlier submission of their own or IDM removing a wordfile due to content or suitability).
The problem I was trying to point out (apparently not very well) is that if I should load for instance a complete IDL 7.0 wordfile, that IDM would easily allow another user to replace that wordfile by uploading one with the same name, no matter what the content or even if it was for the same language. There are no protections in place. User submitted wordfiles are an important tool and I'm not suggesting that submissions be stopped, but am asking for some method of vetting them or at least offering all submissions without replacing existing ones (with the exception of allowing an individual to replace an earlier submission of their own or IDM removing a wordfile due to content or suitability).
