On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:20:31 +0400 Phil Krylov <p...@newstar.rinet.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Andi Jahja <xharb...@telkom.net.id> wrote: > > It's not a matter of defining _HB_API_INTERNAL_ or not, IMO. > > Sorry I don't understand. I meant, whether or not users use _HB_API_INTERNAL_ or NOT, should not be limited/cut by the changes. Users should not be made annoyed at compile time when he uses _HB_API_INTERNAL_. There should be no restriction whatsoever in the header files. Our duties is only to warn users that using _HB_API_INTERNAL_ may probably create problems in binary compatibility. In no way we should restrict the use of _HB_API_INTERNAL_ at users expenses. > > Defining it before these changes has been working for ages. > > Ok, then please tell what do you want to achieve by defining it > externally, and then we can think how you can achieve it now. I use internal structure very-very widely in my OWN source file. But the point is, please make a change that using _HB_API_INTERNAL_ to compile xHarbour works again, AT MY OWN EXPENSE. -- Andi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
