Hello Przemek
> So far each synchronization/MT mechanism in xbase++ we analyzed > adding some xbase++ compatible extensions to Harbour does not work > exactly like in their documentation. Everywhere tests shows some > differences or anomalies. I do not want to guess which one are > intentional or unintentional. > Just simply I would like to ask xbase++ users to make real life > extensive tests before some new feature will be added to Harbour. > Wise advice. > It was expected due to typo in previous commit for setinterval which > enabled unconditional thread restarting. I fixed it in last commit. > But I know previous and current Harbour results - everything was > working as it was designed. The problem for me is knowledge how xbase++ > works. > Understandable. But I must say that you have uncanny precise knowledge about the concepts and are able to translate them to real end. > Thank you. So I guessed correctly. > I committed alternative sync method implementation so Harbour now gives > the same results. > Now, after this commit, Harbour and Xbase++ give the same results, both with coffee.prg and your example. > I haven't removed the old one yet. Before I'll remove it (such cleanup > will greatly simplify some code and allow to use the same synchronization > mechanism for functions and procedure in the future) I would like to see > also other results i.e. for class sync methods and multiple objects of > the same class. > Probably some real user of Xbase++ can help. OR if you have time write a complex program which we can test with both compilers. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MT---Xbase%2B%2B---A-Code-Snippet-tp23783523p23884715.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
