Hi Marek,
You are absolutly right. My post was a kind of
a personal attack and it was meant to be so :).
And after posting it I feel a lot better ;-).
:) Okay, maybe I'm taking your comments too personal.
I surely don't think it makes you feel better, I just
wonder about the reasons behind, but maybe my threshold
is put to low in this regard.
To clarify things to all others - I *very much*
(and when I say "very much" I really mean "*very
much*") appreciate your contributions. In fact
whithout you - Harbour would be dead long ago.
Thanks.
But there are areas where I do not agree with
your solutions at all. And in those areas you
force your solutions without listening to any
(even resonable) arguments. That's why I find
it hard to contribute something usefull to
Harbour at a moment (besides others, much more
important, private healthy problems, which are
still valid unfortunately).
I wish you the best to recover from your health
problems, that's with no question more important
than anything else, especially any geeking around,
even if it's Harbour related. I hope you'll be in
perfect health ASAP.
..as for technical stuff, I know you had a big concern
regarding .dll -> .lib generation. I fully agree it
is a problem when doing binary builds for distribution,
so I hopefully fixed this with the last two commits.
Your comment are welcome.
The other issue I remember is merging libs. We can
get back to it after 1.0, or maybe even after MT
implementation, if there is enough interest. I'd
be definitely happier with less .libs to list in
my make files.
Was there anything else? :/
You bet that when I happen to break anything,
this is not my goal (neither is the goal of
anyone else doing mistakes), and it's definitely
not an attack against you, or your competence.
I never had a feeling you want to impair my
competence. I rather had a feeling you want
to have a final word. That's a difference :).
Well, I think you're right. I'm far from perfect,
that goes without a question. I'll try to check
myself a bit more.
#elif defined( WIN32 )
#define HB_EXPORT _declspec( dllexport )
Yes, I've found the same, based on your hint. The problem
was that WIN32 was used a sort of hidden communication
between the make files and this specific part of
Harbour internals. Since we have a sure way to detect
Win32 inside the core, I've used HB_OS_WIN_32 here,
it should be a safe default if any compiler specific
exceptions were checked before.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
