I'm agree.
Is absurd to make changes of this magnitude because it involves many hours of
work for others.
And in this case the change is not always justified in any case. ( the massive
use of const, or add unused var to structures for
all compilers)
I think that in such cases, if there really is a substantial improvement, it is
best to create
a new version of the engine RDD and both can coexist.
As the majority of compilers on the market.
Phil Krylov escribió:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Luiz Rafael Culik
Guimaraesl...@xharbour.com.br wrote:
this changes in my opinion, is to make more incompatible the api for
developers
No technical merit in these changes then?
Im not discussing merit, but compatility. One os the changes, has break
hwgui ( the new hb_parv*/hb_storv*)
Now imaging how many 3rd parties has to have two version of same code due
this changes.
Look from another perspective: how many people were forced to fix the
usage of hb_par*() with 2 or more arguments, which was broken by
design and not GPF-safe.
This change will probably engage 3rd-party RDD developers, so let them
say. I have one simple RDD which inherits from DBF, and these simple
changes are no problem to me. BTW I guess that most RDD developers
already have 2 versions of code - for Harbour and for xHarbour.
-- Ph.
--
___
xHarbour-developers mailing list
xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
__ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas
de virus 4202 (20090630) __
ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
http://www.eset.com
__ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de
virus 4202 (20090630) __
ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
http://www.eset.com
--
___
xHarbour-developers mailing list
xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
