>>> I though about it but in practice it means that it's necessary to create >>> separate library which is not included by harbour*.dll or hack make files >>> to exclude single file from harbour shared library. Personally I do not >>> like such hacks because sooner or later they are exploited by sth, i.e. >>> it's not possible to recompile current Harbour code with HB_DYNLIB macro >> Which should never be necessary in normal situation. >> IOW if such is required to access any standard Harbour >> feature, it's a bug by itself to be fixed. > > Interesting, Important for me feature you are calling bug :) > I hope that in the future we will not lost possibilities to > build Harbour with and without exported symbols using some > optional settings.
I wonder: when could this be useful? >>> so I would prefer such library though global filter used to excluded files >>> from harbour shared library seems to be acceptable. >> I'd certainly be better. We can add such extra library >> f.e. by the name 'maindll'. > > IMO it should have different name. Such library will be used for > code which should not be included in dynamic/shared library and > above name suggested completely different usage. I'd rather prefer > sth like 'hbstatic'. My proposal targeted this purpose only. To have a generic lib which keeps all such possible static-only components, I agree with 'hbstatic'. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
