Hello
Angel Pais wrote: > > I agree with Viktor. > Ok. I am convinced. So "hbqtxbp" is the right namespace? > GT concept is very different of XBP parts. > We can use Alaska's prg samples to test compatibility. > The true proof of compatiblity of xbp qt compatible parts would be to > recompile TopDown library in QT. Here we can test GUI Development + > Multithreaded windows. > Eventual goal will be to compile all Xbase++ 3rd party tools, especially those only which provide the source code, but initially Xbase++ only sources. > PD: Wouldn't it be more easy to implement a QT's own Gui design method ? > Why should we carry old practices when we have an opportunity to > create something new, light and clean ? > This will be the second phase. It will need a rethinking of class modal, method conventions, argument resolvings and lot more. Plus we may be re-writing needed real-time code to test. This is well suited in the overall scenario but to start with we should go with what is documented and is in use. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/QT---Xbase%2B%2B-Classes---PlaceHolder-tp23918820p23930823.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
