These are xhb compatibility functions with xhb specific
implementations and names, headers. They can be used
without any kind of side effects by linking xhb lib.
I see no point in picking selected xhb functions
and shuffling them around to other libs. This creates
far more problems than it may solve.
Rather, should we move hbdbgfx to hbmisc?
BTW, I see in hbdbgfx that log file is opened/closed
on each call. If performance is an issue (it was in my
case), the handle could be left open, and this way
it's about ten times faster (measured on local disk),
even with locks/flush implemented.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.10.27., at 13:25, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi Lorenzo,
Il 27/10/2008 6.11, Lorenzo Fiorini ha scritto:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Francesco Saverio Giudice
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if you added this function thinking that I miss it, note that
correct
hb_OutDebug() is in xhb lib and you need to add it to link phase.
I think that we can move hblog.prg and hboutdbg.c in hbdbgfx lib.
As I said time ago inside xhb there are two libs that have nothing to
do with xhb itself that are hbxml and hblog that are tested and
documented.
hblog is multiplatform and multichannel ( file, system logs, smtp )
and hbxml is actually the only way to manage xmls in Harbour.
I know them well and also for me them have to be moved outside from
xhb. Probably into hbmisc (as proposed from Viktor to be renamed to
hbtools).
best regards
Francesco
_______________________________________________
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
