and one more: as hbrun seems to be the more
widespread and even xhb compatible exectuable
name, and it might also be referred by scripts,
I'd rather recommend to rename hbdot to hbrun,
and drop current hbrun.
[ One such .exe is 1.5-2MB large depending on
the platform/compiler. ]
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.08.04., at 22:43, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
...moreover: hbdot is already able to run .hrb files.
So the question goes down to: Do we really need hbrun
as a duplicate?
In case we want to offer 'hbrun' as a compatibility
command, it would be much more optimal to just provide
some simple wrapper scripts/batch files.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.08.04., at 22:40, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed these programs implement pretty similar functionality,
and both are pretty big, as they both include the full RTL.
Shouldn't we merge these two utilities into one?
I mean hbdot could run .hrb perfectly well if such file was
specified on the command line, otherwise it could run the
interactive UI.
We could save some considerable build time and distribution
binary size.
Opinions?
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
