Hey Jose, Przemek,
Przemek, thank you for your detailed text ;-)
In Xailer, we use 4 scopes: PUBLISHED, PUBLIC (EXPORTED), PROTECTED and
> PRIVATE (HIDDEN). Recently, when migrating Xailer to Harbour, we had to
> make a trick to support PUBLISHED scope, since it's not present in
> Harbour, but of
Przezmek,
sorry for jumping here, but I belive I have one thing to say about this:
> why xHarbour
> has PUBLISHED scope. Looks that it's the same as EXPORT + persistent
> flag or at least it duplicates such functionality but with separate
> set of functions (also duplicated).
PUBLISHED scope onl
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Ron Pinkas wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for late respone.
> >Please only remember that I was not alone in Harbour modifications in
> >last years. Viktor made really great job in general code and used types
> >cleanup. Mindaugas added important extensions to compiler and HVM/RTL
> >code,
Hi Przemek,
> I agree. Both projects benefited from each other.
> A lot of code was borrowed from Harbour to xHarbour and from xHarbour to
> Harbour after the fork. Also ideas were shared even if the implementations
> were completely different.
:-)
> I can try to help you in some spare time but
Thank you Przemek! ;-)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Przemyslaw Czerpak
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The real problem can appear at runtime and is caused by binary
> > compatibility with older code.
> > HB_SERIALIZE() gives incompatible results. It mean
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
Hi,
> The real problem can appear at runtime and is caused by binary
> compatibility with older code.
> HB_SERIALIZE() gives incompatible results. It means that
> HB_DESERIALIZE() from Harbour cannot decode data encoded by
> current xHarbour HB_SERIA
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Ron Pinkas wrote:
Hi,
> I fully agree with Przemek, that we can NOT aford to drop support for Linux.
> There are too many reasons to count, and Przmek did mention most of them.
> I would only add, that many prospective open source contributors are Linux
> users.
>
> As to t
Em 20/01/2013 16:16, Ron Pinkas escreveu:
> I fully agree with Przemek, that we can NOT aford to drop support for Linux.
> There are too many reasons to count, and Przmek did mention most of them. I
> would only add, that many prospective open source contributors are Linux
> users.
And I fully
I fully agree with Przemek, that we can NOT aford to drop support for Linux.
There are too many reasons to count, and Przmek did mention most of them. I
would only add, that many prospective open source contributors are Linux users.
As to the other obsevations and comments of Przemek, I must sad
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013, Andi Jahja wrote:
Hi Andi,
> Seems no comment at all, particularly from what ppl call *nix users. BTW,
> does anyone here have a thought about it?
I think that xHarbour lost most of them.
> FYI, we stuck releasing versions officially because there's no-one
> interested in b
Hey Andi,
I know a few Linux users, but not that many. Maybe we should ask on the NG
to see how many Linux users we have?
I only use Windows ;-)
Patrick
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andi Jahja wrote:
> Seems no comment at all, particularly from what ppl call *nix users. BTW,
> does anyone
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:29:31 +0100
Patrick Mast wrote:
> Hey Andi,
>
> I know a few Linux users, but not that many. Maybe we should ask on the NG
> to see how many Linux users we have?
>
> I only use Windows ;-)
Same here. I only use Windows. No time to experiment with
uncertain/lower grade OS
Seems no comment at all, particularly from what ppl call *nix users. BTW,
does anyone here have a thought about it?
FYI, we stuck releasing versions officially because there's no-one
interested in building that *nix stuffs.
I would suggest to leave *nix if there's no longer interest in it.
Usabil
I just subscribed Saulius, so he should now accecable here. :-)
Saulius, please make sure to use your email client "Reply to All" o that it
will be psted to the list.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Andi Jahja wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:43:36 -0800
> Ron Pinkas wrote:
>
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:43:36 -0800
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> First happy new year to every one, and thanks for your kind contributions in
> 2012.. :-)
Happy New Year too..
> Welcome aboard to our new developer, Saulius. Saulius has contributed few
> important fixes to memory leaks in
hed) is considerated as stable code
> for release. I think the 1.2.0 branch is unstable.
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> --- Em qua, 5/11/08, Patrick Mast, xHarbour. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>
>> De: Patrick Mast, xHarbour. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Assunt
nto: Re: [xHarbour-developers] New Release
> Para: xharbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Data: Quarta-feira, 5 de Novembro de 2008, 0:35
> Eduardo,
>
> > Can you untag the 1.2.0 for me commit last tbrowse.prg
> and restore hbver.h
> > from 1.1.0 version before release ?
Eduardo,
> Can you untag the 1.2.0 for me commit last tbrowse.prg and restore hbver.h
> from 1.1.0 version before release ?
Meaning you committed your changes to the head branche and you want it also
in branche 1-2-0?
Patrick
-
Patrick,
Can you untag the 1.2.0 for me commit last tbrowse.prg and restore hbver.h from
1.1.0 version before release ?
regards,
Eduardo
--- Em seg, 3/11/08, Patrick Mast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> De: Patrick Mast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Assunto: [xHarbour-developers] New Release
> Para:
Peter Rees escribió:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Ignore my previous reply
>
> I've discovered that with a recent change, the CFLAG define -DHB_NO_PROFILER
> must be the same when creating user EXE from PRG source as it was when
> HARBOUR.EXE was built. (see c:\xharbour\include\classes.h).
>
> Is it a good ide
> Unless there are reports of problems with current CVS (I'm not aware of
> any), I see no reason to complicate this issue. Are you or anyone else
> aware of any show stopper in current CVS?
I don't finish to upload changes to actual CVS.
1) I need to solve HB_NO_TRACE flag actually doesn't
From: Ron Pinkas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:53 AM
To: Patrick Mast; xHarbour-Developers
Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] New Release
Patrick,
Unless there are reports of problems with current CVS (I'm not aware of
any), I see no reason to complicate
Patrick,
Unless there are reports of problems with current CVS (I'm not aware of any), I
see no reason to complicate this issue. Are you or anyone else aware of any
show stopper in current CVS?
Otherwise, please let's start sending HBTEST and BUILD reports for all
environments, and let's proce
Patrick
I know one from Eduardo Fernandes due an problem on last dbedit.prg commit
Regards
Luiz
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Mast, xHarbour.com
To: xHarbour-Developers
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] New release
Hey guys
Hey guys,
Do we have more pending commits?
Paul, how close are you with finishing GT?
Patrick
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Patrick Mast, xHarbour.com <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I'd like to call for a release freeze if there are no pending bug fixes.
>
> Paul, do you think you
Paul,
> PMx> Now, don't wanne rush you but.. We are kinda waiting for you to get a
> PMx> new release out. ;-)
> PMx> Can you give me any time frame for your commit?
>
> Yes I know :-( I'll crank the rest out just as soon as I can. By the
> weekend is the best I can do.
Perfect! Thanks.
Pa
PMx> Now, don't wanne rush you but.. We are kinda waiting for you to get a
PMx> new release out. ;-)
PMx> Can you give me any time frame for your commit?
Yes I know :-( I'll crank the rest out just as soon as I can. By the
weekend is the best I can do.
Paul
-
Paul,
> PMx> Paul, do you think you can finish GT for this release?
> PMx> Thanks!
>
> That is the plan... I've been studying how the gt works now, and trying to
> understand what Prezmeks issue is with how maxrow/col worked before. One
> of
> us must be missing something, and I'm fairly sure
Patrick,
PMx> Paul, do you think you can finish GT for this release?
PMx> Thanks!
That is the plan... I've been studying how the gt works now, and trying to
understand what Prezmeks issue is with how maxrow/col worked before. One of
us must be missing something, and I'm fairly sure it's not
I use this functions as normal, can you send me a reduced example that fails.
Then i can help to you, I need to do some changes at kernel to eliminate some
restrictions.
about INET
Best regards,
Miguel Angel Marchuet
bhays escribió:
> Has anyone fully tested InetRecvAll() ?
>
> We have an unre
Brian
I use the inetrecvall function with out problems, but i dont call inetrecv
regards
Luiz
- Original Message -
From: "bhays" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'xHarbour-Developers'"
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [xHarbour-develope
Has anyone fully tested InetRecvAll() ?
We have an unresolved problem with the Internet communication functions.
We've been unable to reduce it to a small sample, so I don't expect this to
stop finalizing a release. But it would be good to know if a lot of people
have
done a lot of testing of th
Miguel,
1. I'm not witnessing any GPF trap with -W3. Please point me to an
actual code which triggers such gpf.
2. The wrong warnings were due to minor typo, related to -W3 (strong
typing) being disabled because it must be recoded from scratch. In
the mean time IIRC -W2 is the highest func
Another problem for release:
If you use -w3 easily GPF is produced
and they are wrong warnings. for example says:
at line 36
PROCEDURE Main( cAppArg )
says:
prg\Senior.prg(234) Warning W0003 Variable: 'CAPPARG' declared but not used in
function: 'MAIN(36)'
but is used at line 96
oApp:
I think is not prepared yet:
PROCEDURE Main()
LOCAL b := <||
RETURN Nil
>
--- compile error ---
RETURN
this sample says
test.prg(5) Error E0030 Syntax error: "syntax error at 'ERROR'"
when it should to say
test.prg(7) Error E0030 Syntax erro
Unless some problems are reported with regard to:
2008-06-03 00:17 UTC-0430 Ron Pinkas
I have no pending changes. Once GT and ADS are cleared we should go
ahead with a new release.
Ron
On May 30, 2008, at 11:51 PM, Patrick Mast, xHarbour.com wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> How close are we to a
RP> FWIW, I'm using MSVC too (VS 2005) and while I didn't make any speed
RP> comparisons, the new make system appears faster. Additionaly the
RP> older system was forcing me to manually delete files to force a
RP> rebuild - f.e. every time I made any modification to ppcore.c I'd
RP> have to d
Paul,
FWIW, I'm using MSVC too (VS 2005) and while I didn't make any speed
comparisons, the new make system appears faster. Additionaly the
older system was forcing me to manually delete files to force a
rebuild - f.e. every time I made any modification to ppcore.c I'd
have to delete ppcor
RP> Do you have any specifics on why would compile time be slower? My
RP> experience has been the opposite - I think this new make system is a
RP> great improvement.
I'm using MSVC.
I'll not argue the fact that the original system left something to be
desired, but I can't see how your experi
Paul,
Do you have any specifics on why would compile time be slower? My
experience has been the opposite - I think this new make system is a
great improvement.
Ron
On May 31, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Paul Tucker wrote:
>
> PMx> Paul, are you working on GT?
>
> I am - and while I've been putting u
PT> I am - and while I've been putting up with how things are, I must say,
PT> I am severly annoyed that this make process was implemented. The
PT> compile time is astounding and is most of the reason this wasn't done
PT> the first time it was brought up.
ok - I re-worked my machine back to
PMx> Paul, are you working on GT?
I am - and while I've been putting up with how things are, I must say, I am
severly annoyed that this make process was implemented. The compile time is
astounding and is most of the reason this wasn't done the first time it was
brought up.
I am also annoyed
Patrick,
MT is still broken. Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to debug the
internals :-(
I think we should just wait.
--
Andi
On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:51:01 +0200
"Patrick Mast, xHarbour.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> How close are we to a new release? Who has pending code a
Patrick
even gtwvw are in contrib part, i think we need to release with it. i know many
people that use gtwvw. and i think the best person to port this is Phil or Paul
Atenciosamente
Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes
Suporte Xharbour
www.xharbour.com.br
Sat, 31 May 2008 08:51:01 +0200, "Patrick Mast
Patrick,
there is an issue with by-reference variables due to syncing xharbour and
harbour code which I think should be fixed before the release.
I did look at this issue but I was not able to find out what is wrong, so I
hope Phil and/or Ron can, at least, point me in the right direction.
Be
45 matches
Mail list logo
