>> Nothing changed AFAIK. Accented / non-ASCII chars >> never worked alright and there were several other screen >> artifact, performance was very slow and there were >> several basic problems with it (f.e. screen marking feature >> mixed up with mouse/key input). I reported some of >> these long ago. >> > > I do remember, but as said before, at that point of time > I had limited knowledge of Qt. I think I need to rework the > entire GT again with a clean slate.
Even more important question IMO, is if it serves any useful purpose at all to have a QT based GT? The only one I could cite is that GTQT uses native GUI on OSX (not X11 as GTXWC), but this doesn't really justifies the effort to make it a new tier-one GT. > I will do after hbIDE reaches an acceptable stage. IMO we (well, you) should focus on making QT stable. F.e. I'm still getting the crash at program exit, and without wanting to go into it deeply, for me most menu functionality seemed broken. F.e. open file allows to select .hbi, then gives open error, project open didn't work, some menus didn't work (theme selection is still non-standard, which is rather strange), project import is non-intuitive with those two extra buttons, .hbp is still an import format, rather than native. .hbi is _still_ location (and thus platform) dependent. Slots/events mechanism is central and .prg level handling is also not well defined (holder variables needs to be created manually, while it could be part of app class or windows class). Too many to mention and the list is not shrinking, even though I'm only scratching the surface. Basically _none_ of the ground work I did with hbmk2 and hbqt build system is used in any ways. So I keep wondering in investing more minutes to/for this project. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
