Hi Pritpal,
> >1) You're introducing xhb dependency for gtwvg, which isn't good. > > As stated in previous post, I have deffered this decision. > So until we reach an agreement WAPI_*() functions category > will contain only those functions not needing structures. That's fine good, but now you want to add xhb structures to GTWVG, which cuts the chance to ever move those Windows wrappers to hbwin (at least not without breaking compatibility). > >2) Problem reports of gtwvg problems are ignored. > > Which reports ? Any list? Except that there are type mismatches > on some other compilers which I do not use. Please post > (everybody) the problems so those could be fixed. They were posted on this list, some others I used to include in ChangeLog entries (also posted here), I don't maintain such list. Yesterday owatcom incompatibility was reported. > <<< > 3) Instead of moving useful and existing WAPI functionality from > existing libs to hbwin, you're adding plain new ones. > Which is by itself not a problem, currently messes situation > just gets even more messed by growing another branch > here without touching the numerous existing ones. > >>> > > This is the next step. Right now I write only those functions > needed for WVG*() classes. Thses functions will be UNICODE > compliant and are under testing env. To remove those from > other libs will be quite fast, then. Okay. > >>> > > Surely not. Not even interested in that direction. Great to hear that :) Brgds, Viktor
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
