> and while I don't like the arbitrary "up to 9" thing, we're currently in the 1-3 range for our used > dlls, so we'll look at it again when they get up to api version 9
Yeah, I don't like it either, but I don't see a better way to dynamically load the last version of a library.
I checked the code you merged, and it seems fine except that I think it breaks OSX, don't it? It is not trying any name for OSX
Thanks for the feedback!
> and while I don't like the arbitrary "up to 9" thing, we're currently in the 1-3 range for our used > dlls, so we'll look at it again when they get up to api version 9
Yeah, I don't like it either, but I don't see a better way to dynamically load the last version of a library.
I checked the code you merged, and it seems fine except that I think it breaks OSX, don't it? It is not trying any name for OSX