Okay, I'll simply remove the HB* versions then. Brgds, Viktor On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
