Hello Przemek,
Did you receive my private mail regarding Eof == .T. on Phantom record?
Thanks!
Patrick
___
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Hi all,
Strict compatibiliy. If we need an enhanced
Eof() function (or one that behaves differently), we
should introduce a separate function for it (hb_eof() f.e.).
It should not have EOF in the name. As I said some future RDDs
may support two (both
] On Behalf Of Patrick Mast
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:17 PM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] Eof == .T. on Phantom record
Przemek,
Thank you very much for your reply.
What is the others developer's idea on this?
Keep it strict Clipper compatible or change
Hi all,
Strict compatibiliy. If we need an enhanced
Eof() function (or one that behaves differently), we
should introduce a separate function for it (hb_eof() f.e.).
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.02.12., at 13:16, Patrick Mast wrote:
Przemek,
Thank you very much for your reply.
What is the others
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Przemyslaw Czerpak
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:10 PM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] Eof == .T. on Phantom record
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Patrick Mast wrote:
Hello Przemek,
Did you
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Patrick Mast wrote:
Hello Przemek,
Did you receive my private mail regarding Eof == .T. on Phantom record?
Thanks!
It's normal Clipper behavior replicated in [x]Harbour:
proc main(rdd)
rddSetDefault(iif(empty(rdd),DBFCDX,rdd))
? rddSetDefault()
Przemek,
Thank you very much for your reply.
What is the others developer's idea on this?
Keep it strict Clipper compatible or change current EOF behaviour?
Patrick
On Feb 12, 2008 12:10 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Patrick Mast wrote:
Hello Przemek,
