Hello
Viktor Szakáts wrote: > > "ToOutDebug" and friends are not allowed to be used in > any of our contribs. Ever. Yet they are unfortunately. > There is a large inconsistent mess when it comes to debug > calls in hbqt/hbxbp. > But then there is no viable alternative to this until library stabilizes. I think we are aware enough to this fact and have to bear with it. Every time I commit I cannot go through to clean debug calls because the next moment I need them again. > At the same time I've added this in hbxbp on .prg level: > --- > #if defined( __HB_OUTDEBUG__ ) > > > #if defined( __PLATFORM__WINDOWS ) .AND. defined( __HB_WINDEBUG__ ) > > > #xtranslate HB_OUTDEBUG( [<x>] ) => wapi_OutputDebugString( <x> ) > > > #else > > > #xtranslate HB_OUTDEBUG( [<x>] ) => hb_TraceString( <x> ) > > > #endif > > > #else > > > #xtranslate HB_OUTDEBUG( [<x>] ) => iif( .T.,, ) > > > #endif > > And we have HB_TRACE() on .c level since 10 years. > > This is on prg level, fine, and there is no contension. I will change the call from hb_toOutDebug() to hb_outDebug(). But what about C level? HB_TRACE() is not an option to me. I am not used to application level debugging nor does it fits my needs. Anybody who post this noise perhaps does not understand what he should change to avoid it, however temporarily. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/HBQT%2C-HBXBP---Test---New-HB-GC-and-QT-interface-tp26328073p26328711.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
