> > Viktor Szakáts wrote: > > > > I also opt for clean code. If compatibility is such concern we should > find > > some optional compatibility layer. Maybe cleaner OLE implementation > > will result in more robust app/3rd party lib code, too, which is always > > a good thing. > > > > But the question is what is that "comatibility layer"?
Something what is tackled on top of our clean solution. Like a compatibility class with compatibility features. Completely separate from clean solution. > This does not mean that you have to have "cleaner code" > in comparison to "working code". I'm not sure about your point. "working" doesn't automatically mean: working in all cases, secure, maintainable, free from internals and bad practices, conforming to stds, portable, etc. For me "clean" means these properties. Brgds, Viktor
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
