On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Pritpal Bedi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you forward your view points on demoxbp also. > This is more near to xbase syntax and probably the already documented > class framework. This is one point: the relationship between hbqt and hbxbp. I've never used xbase so for me the syntax and the classes of hbqt are closer to GTK and Java ( the GUIs that I have used ) than xbp ones. I've always liked xhgtk because it follows closely GTK standards at the point that is possible to use the documentation of GTK to learn xhgtk and I'm not surprised that Marcos Antonio Gambeta continues this clever path. I understand that we need to find a "path" between harbour UI objects ( says, gets, tbrowses ) and hbqt and if the group agree that this is hbxbp it's ok for me, but I'd ask to consider also alternative paths. Clearly hbxbp has a great value if you have xbp code but we need to define what happens when we need to change it or extend it. Stating "let's use it because it's documented" implies "we'll follow it now and in the future". Are we sure we want to have an UI defined and updated elsewhere? best regards, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
