Hi Przemek, Yes, I saw your message. I've now read a few replies. Ron is probably referring to the hb_retc_buffer() and friends situation, which was developed by me in my local repository without looking into any xhb source or employing methods used there (you have to take my word for it, or look up commits or committed code from this period, or look into actual implementations). Now, Ron is complaining that the two APIs aren't compatible. Well, exactly, because my intent wasn't to replicate *anything* present in xhb, (first off because I've never looked into the implementation, or even the scope of the feature), just to implement a good idea in Harbour the best way I could. BTW, this happened after the split and it took me about 5 years to look into xhb source tree the first time.
The only connection to Ron and xhb is that I've read the Harbour list and saw the function name hb_retc[len]Adopt() in one of the messages (on 2002. Jan 23) which sparked the idea of implementing these new API functions in Harbour, without ever knowing more than these two names, the idea is quite simple and logical, and ideas cannot be copyrighted. So, even this example of not giving credit is unfounded, and there isn't any other example in the whole life of Harbour anybody could pull. See these two commits for comparison: Harbour: 2002-01-30 09:30 UTC+0100 Antonio Linares <[email protected]> xhb / ChangeLog.013: 2001-12-29 17:16 UTC-0800 Ron Pinkas <[email protected]> Brgds, Viktor On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > If you have any opinion on this, please add it here, before doing such > > action it'd be also nice to hear some xhb opinions. > > Below is a message I sent few hours before your one to xHarbour > developer list. I didn't know that you plan to write such message. > > best regards, > Przemek > > > ----- Forwarded message from Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]> ----- > From: Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] 2009-04-23 16:25 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel > Marchuet <[email protected]> > To: Xharbour-Developers List <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:16:52 +0200 > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: > > Hi, > > > 2009-04-23 16:25 UTC+0100 Miguel Angel Marchuet < > [email protected]> > > * include\dbinfo.ch > > * include\hbapi.h > > * include\hbrddbmc.h > > * include\hbrddcdx.h > > * include\hbrdddbf.h > > * include\hbrddnsx.h > > * include\hbsxfunc.h > > * include\std.ch > > * source\codepage\cppl852.c > > * source\rdd\bmdbfcdx\bmdbfcdx1.c > > * source\rdd\dbf1.c > > * source\rdd\dbfcdx\dbfcdx1.c > > * source\rdd\dbfnsx\dbfnsx1.c > > * source\rtl\file.c > > * source\rtl\valtype.c > > * source\vm\itemapi.c > > + Added internal item type TIMESTAMP, the union of TIMESTAMP + DATE > => DATETIME. > > Please review is possible it needs some change more, but test by > the moment run all ok. > > + Added capabilities of index over field type DATETIME (T) and > TIMESTAMP (@) (it will be need test). > > only for nsx and cdx index types. > > * simplified code and minor adjusts. > > * Changed ( ( LPDBFDATA ) pRDD->lpvCargo ) by DBFNODE_DATA( pRDD ), > to do more readable code. > > * source\rtl\filesys.c > > + Added partial support to OSCodePage in function hb_fsNameConv. > > * source\rtl\spfiles.c > > + added hb_spFileExists( BYTE * pFilename, BYTE * pRetPath ) called > from rdds. > > * simplified code and minor adjusts. > > * Used hb_setGetDefault() instead of hb_set.HB_SET_DEFAULT, to > respect access to static variables > > from DLL. > [...] > > most of above modifications is direct COPY and PAST of Harbour source code > files modified to compile with xHarbour header files. > As I can see in the ChangeLog it's not the 1-st time when you are not > leaving any information about the source of your commits when in practice > nearly each of them was based on code borrowed from Harbour. > I hope that you will update all your ChangeLog entries and will remember > about it in the future. > > best regards, > Przemek > > ps. I think that you should discuss such modifications with xHarbour > developers before commit. Harbour uses different logic for timestamp > items. It has different arithmetic and relational operators behavior > in HVM and native RDDs were updated to respect it. You ported to > xHarbour > only RDD part what is technical nonsense because now the RDD results of > some operations like seek or scope positioning can give incompatible to > HVM results, f.e. this code can show "corrupted index" for ascending > index on timestamp value: > seek( dDate ) > if ordKeyVal() < dDate > ? "corrupted index" > endif > If you want to introduce it to xHarbour then you should 1-st agree > the behavior in the whole code and modifications in HVM/RTL. Probably > you will need Walter help here. > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > 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
