Agree It's better to have one RDD containing all feature
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mindaugas Kavaliauskas Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:35 AM To: Harbour Project Main Developer List. Subject: Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people Hi, > View the controversy it creates, I propose to upload the following rdds: > > dbf1.c strict compatibility with C/52 (RT and Types) DBFCDX52.LIB > dbf2.c strict compatibility with CL53 (RT, BM and Types)DBFCDX53.LIB > dbf3.c strict compatibility with VFoxPro (RT and Types) DBFCDXVF.LIB > dbf4.c strict compatibility with ADS (RT and Types) DBFCDXAD.LIB > dbf5.c extended from the current RDD harbour DBFCDXHB.LIB > ... > dbf6.c strict compatibility with DBaseIV MDBCDX.LIB > db1.c strict compatibility with Paradox DBPX.LIB > > > this can lighten the rdds make something even faster. > > All people are agree ? I think it will make a total mess for any Harbour user. It's better to have one RDD containing all features. For developers - many source code will be duplicated in dbf*.c, and it will harder to change code. Best regards, Mindaugas _______________________________________________ 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
