I agree.
I'd also suggest to add some arguments why a given
feature is useful, before adding it to core, even
if it's easy to implement. This is important to keep
the language straightforward and to avoid bloat.
This feature's only merit IMO is that it's an XBase++
compatibility one (otherwise it's just a 3rd/4th synonym
for an existing statement), so we should mark it as
HB_COMPAT_XPP.
We still have it pending to switch to a more flexible
way to add/remove compatibility layers for different
Clipper dialects, possibly at compile/link time,
rather than Harbour build time. We can do this after
1.0. This is also important to make sure that no
Harbour code (and possible contrib) code is using
any such optional extensions. Right now it's quite
cumbersome to find out these problems (like such
a simple thing as using SToD() instead of hb_SToD()).
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.06.27., at 2:24, Petr Chornyj wrote:
Pritpal Bedi wrote:
<<<
#xcommand METHOD <!ClassName!>:<MethodName> => ;
METHOD <MethodName> CLASS <ClassName>
If you find it useful then we can add it to our hbclass.ch
Please do it. It is extremely useful.
For what extremely? IMHO it's "sugar" and if we want to add this to
hbclass.ch we must use #ifdef HB_CLS_XPP or in another way we can
add it to
hbcompat.ch because it is supported in xHarbour.
Regards,
Petr
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Method-ClassName%3AMethodName%28-...-%29-tp18142377p18146004.html
Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
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
