Hi Przemek,
Okey, here's my TODO list for rename, let's revise it.
Current Proposed
LIBNAME LIBNAME
----------- -------------
codepage hbcp
common hbcommon
compiler hbcomp ! -> hbc
debug hbdebug
hbsix hbsix
hsx hbhsx
lang hblang
macro hbmacro
pp hbpp
rtl hbrtl
vm hbvm
gt* hbgt* ! -> gt* ?
rdd hbrdd
dbfcdx hbrddcdx ! -> hbcdxrdd ?
dbffpt hbrddfpt ! -> hbfptrdd ?
dbfntx hbrddntx ! -> hbntxrdd ?
nulsys hbnulrdd
usrrdd hbusrrdd
The problem seems to be with the ones with an
exclamation mark (with proposals). (I'd not rename
everything to be 3 chars this time, since this
would make them not resemble to their dir name in
the source tree)
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.01.25., at 9:37, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Hi Przemek and all,
One important issue came to my mind, namely the
renaming of Harbour core libraries, to have the
"hb" prefix on them, as we've planned and already
agreed on not long ago.
I can do this on the weekend, but since this
would be a move which would definitely stir up
users, since all make files will need to be
modified, I was reluctant to do it so far. But
Not all. Users who use hb* scripts will not see any
difference. The main problem is that they are available
only on platforms with bash.
But we will have to update our own make files for each
platform and this will have to be tested.
still I feel it would be important to separate
Harbour from other present or future products.
Shall I do this renaming now?
OK, please do it if all can be done in this weekend.
Better now then never. I also had some problems with
name conflicts here so I agree that it's a problem.
Though maybe we should try to create one big library
f.e. harbour.lib instead? In such case I suggest to
leave it now and make modifications in the future
after 1.0 release.
Anyhow any modifications should be done fast. We are all
blocked by the release state and there is a lot of other
changes and extensions frozen by it so we have to finish
it ASAP. We cannot expect that developers will be interested
in some projects enough to wait for months to realise them.
We will never reach the state when we all will be happy from
current code and can say that there is nothing more to improve
so sometimes we have to take an arbitrary decision. I think
that in one and a half of month we can have version 1.0 and
begin to work on many other things.
BTW H in HVM is from harbour so do not create HBHVM but HBVM ;-)
and rather leave names of GT* libraries as they are. GT seems
to be quite good prefix too, f.e.:
HBCP
HBCOM
HBCMP
HBDBG
HBLNG
HBMAC
HBPP
HBRDD
HBRTL
HBVM
Please remember that first five letters have to be significant
for DJGPP DOS8.3 build where LIB prefix is used. You can use
longer names but after stripping to 8.3 format they should be
unique.
best regards,
Przemek
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
