Viktor, I'd say that clipper, all versions, inside core, while xpp and vfp in contrib like hbxpp or even xpp.
Best regards. Maurilio. Viktor Szakáts wrote: > Hi Maurilio and All, > > On 2010 Feb 15, at 10:39, Maurilio Longo wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I see that there are xpp compatibility objects available inside src/rtl and >> inside contrib/xpp which make me wonder why we have a xpp library when part >> of >> it is already inside runtime library. >> >> Shouldn't the xpp compatibility bits be inside xpp library only? > > Yes, that's the plan. I left them there in core for > compatibility and to gather some feedback until final > decision. > > Actually the issue is wider, as we have FoxPro, > FlagShip and C53 functions in core, which would > require similar "treatment". > > My idea was to move all non-C52e function to > "dialect" libs. Questions are: where to draw > the line? (f.e. C53 may be better left in core), > and how to name and where to place these "dialect" > libs. > > Probably it would be best to keep them in contrib > area, and give them some distinctive lib prefix, > f.e. 'hdxpp', 'hdxhb', 'hdfs', 'hdclip', 'hdfox'. > > If we agree on the naming, placement and the fact > that some .prg-level FlagShip, FoxPro stuff will > move out from core. I'm ready to make the move. > > Opinions are welcome. > > Brgds, > Viktor > > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) > [email protected] > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour > -- __________ | | | |__| Maurilio Longo |_|_|_|____| farmaconsult s.r.l. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
