On Thu, 05 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi,
> The real problem is that each of these compilers need to be > tested, documented, builds done, waiting for green lights, > spending time of workarounds... with no real value. We have > limited time, and there are much more important areas to > spend it on. We have quite many compilers so adding a few > buggy ones really doesn't enhance our code quality to a great > deal, on the contrary it just makes it more complicated. This is true. > Let's leave XCC, if you need it for testing. Thanks, > Specifically for DMC, I think it added no value since adding > it last year, but I've alone spent a few days on it so far. > I'm half way into deleting it, but I can start over if you need this > compiler, just send me a short confirmation please. I do not need it. > As for moving the logic inside hbmk2 to external templates, > it would surely be nice, but I envision it as a huge amount of > work, it needs to be designed well, flexible, yet comprehensible. > We will see, first I'd like to wait until we finish and test internal > support for the full line of our compilers. If this is done, it's much > easier/safer to compose a picture about a fitting template system. I fully agree here. We have to see the whole picture 1-st. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
