On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:04:33 +0400
Phil Krylov wrote:
> 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.
Broken by design? I think I agree with it, LOL.
Away from such kind of a des
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
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Luiz Rafael Culik
Guimaraes 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 n
>
>> 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 vers
Patrick
this changes in my opinion, is to make more incompatible the api for
developers
Regards
Luiz
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Mast, xHarbour."
To: "xHarbour Developers Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:03 AM
Subject: [xHarbour-developers] RDD changes
> Hello,
Please, don't upload any change in this moment.
I'm finishing some relevant changes at rdd subsystem..
1) Session subsystem.
2) Transactional subsystem for all rdd.
3) header lock info
and others ... ;)
Best regards,
Miguel Angel Marchuet
Patrick Mast, xHarbour. escribió:
> Hello,
>
> I saw o
6 matches
Mail list logo
