On Wed, 04 Feb 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi Viktor,
> This is brand new information, so essentially the whole > assumption was false, that we should get rid of GET(), is this > the case? Yes. I'm really sorry - my fault. I should check it first. Just simply I forgot about it. > How about adding a class(y) compatibility .prg, > which forwards GET() to HBGET() and so on? I would like to not make such modifications if they are not strictly necessary now. They may interact with real class objects when we introduce them. First I will have to document core code modifications and what will have to be changed. With real class objects many things like creating new class can be much simpler and I would like to benefit from it instead of adding new emulation layer for backward compatibility to some temporary solutions we introduced. > Or I can easily revert this, no problem, but I'll keep the > XPP class separation anyway. OK. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
