<<<
function names,
Absolutely NO, as it is the central idea behind.
It's a compatibility issue, but how come naming
GTWVG functions as GTWVT is the central idea?
I don't understand.
[ I thought the central idea is that GTWVG is a GUI
which allows me to use Clipper legacy console output
commands to generate GUI (or hybrid) apps. The fact
that it's technically based on GTWVT, and that it
shares a lot of code with it, really doesn't matter
in regards to the final user (developer) experience
IMO. It's just an implementation detail. ]
They might be similar, but
they are not at all the same, so they should have distinct
names. Sometime I even don't know which we are talking about
on this list, it's that confusing. All GTs are replaceable,
that's their main point, but if they are different, they
should be named differently.
Sure all GT's are replaceable but the exception is GTWVT and GTWVG.
Both are mutually exclusive.
I can understand that. Still, it's extremely
confusing to name GTWVG functions as GTWVT.
Names are also used quite inconsistently right now,
some are named WVG and some WVT, so I think we should
somehow transition things to WVG. To not break app
compatibility, a simple #define layer could be added
to translate WVT to WVG for the application level code,
optionally with a notice that code is recommended to
be updated.
Right now if a casual Harbour user sees "WVT_SetClipboard()",
he/she would logically look for this function in the
core, they would naturally expect it to require gtwvt.lib.
It's unlikely they could easily figure that gtwvg.lib is
what they really need.
Names are very important.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
