On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote: Hi Mindaugas,
> 3 Well a can not even understand the third choice. The truth is, that still > do not understand string comparison in Clipper, but very well understand > strcmp() behaviour. So you can think about: ( <cVal1> <op> <cVal2> ) where <op> is <, <=, >, >=, = as: ( strncmp( <cVal1>, <cVal2>, strlen( <cVal2> ) ) <op> 0 ) in C code. The results are exactly the same. Of course as long as you will not try to enable SET EXACT ON which makes the string comparison really strange for someone who does not know the exact semantic. For me the standard string comparison is simple, natural and very usable, f.e.: SET FILTER TO FIELD->ART_CODE >= "B" .and. FIELD->ART_CODE <= "E" all articles with code starting on letters: B, C, D, E. It's much faster then using LEFT() function. Personally I would like to add switch for compiler to generate PCODE which will not depend on _SET_EXACT switch. It can greatly help in core code or library code developing because we will not have to add workarounds for _SET_EXACT. BTW in rtl/listbox.prg we have _SET_EXACT and this peace of code is not Clipper compatible because enabling _SET_EXACT does not replicate the "exact" Clipper comparison used in this code. It should be fixed. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
