As for backward compatibility, I think we can break it
in this case and at this point in time.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2009 Oct 22, at 09:38, Horodyski Marek (PZUZ) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Mindaugas Kavaliauskas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:57 AM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] ActiveX and GPF
Hi,
1. we can add additional "mark" function which will be registered
with GC block together with cleanup function by hb_gcAlloc().
... We can implement it
without additional memory overhead and even increasing a little
bit speed of existing GC core code but it will be necessary
As always I vote for feature instead of backward compatibility :)
Manufacturers 3-libraries countries are waiting for stable version to
comply with it.
This behavior can maintain performance even when there is no backward
compatibility is maintained.
Harbor is so young that can not afford a failure to backward
compatibility.
For me it is about as "black magic", but the concept of "efficiency" I
understand very well:)
Regards,
Marek Horodyski
_______________________________________________
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
