Hello Viktor
Viktor Szakáts wrote: > >> SUGGESSIONS: Should I implement Harbour extensions to the Xbp* >> classes? >> I find a wide scope to add few more instance >> variables to the >> class. > > For me it's okay if they are all guarded with a macro (HB_XBP_EXT). > All extensions have to be portable to all QT supported platforms though. > > BTW, does this mean that Xbase++ features and compatibility is now > reaching completion? > Yes, these have to he guarded. Feature compatibility will be 100% at final stages. Right now some parts need more work and also other parts implemented. For example XbpFont() and XbpBitmap() classes are needed to simulate other parts exact behavior where these are one of the alternate arguments. But eventually it will be. The delay is due to the fact that three-and-a-half months before I have NOT even heard the word "QT". So the learning curve is a bit longer. BTW I see a striking similarity between many instance variables and method calling convention between Xbase++ and QT. I am wondering QT is inspired by Xbase++ or the reverse is the case. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SF.net-SVN%3A-harbour-project%3A-11610--trunk-harbour-tp24309879p24311806.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
