On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that was not your point, but IMO __hrb*() functions should > be named hb_hrb*() since they are not really internal features > anymore. > > Should we do it now? I'd delete the two spawn*.prg tests. They are outdated, with a wrong name and don't represent the real possibilities of hrb. > For this I'd suggest to add something to hbw32.lib. Not only background, > but also minimized, hidden, dont-wait-to-terminate (solvabe with direct > CreateProcess() call only AFAIK) etc can be other options on Windows. > You might also already use ShellExecute(), this is also Win and even > shell specific, and not portable in a clean way. > > Anyway, if there would be a portable way to solve any of this, it would > be great, I agree. As it is now __RUN ( or HB_RUN ) is more a "SHELL" or "SYSTEM". It's clear that we can't change __RUN or RUN cmd but extending HB_RUN to use WinExec ( or CreateProcess ) would be simple and highly portable ( in the sense that it has a meaning in all OS ). I agree that other possibilities like window behaviour control should be OS specific best regatds, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
