Hello
Viktor Szakáts wrote: > > I've moved new ole to hbwin, because otherwise we will very very > slowly adapt to > it, since very few users would test it. > Not exactly. It just broke all the linking process itself, simply unusable to test either. > hbwin.lib - New implementation, with clean concepts, names, OLE, etc. > hbwinold.lib - Old implementation kept for compatibility until 3rd parties > can adapt. Code frozen. > Why to force existing scripts to be changed? It should be like: hbole.lib - As current hbwin - make sure that it compiles and at least links fine stand alone. hbwin.lib - As standard old one - and frozen for new work. I mean two parallel libs ao that user could switch over to other for testing purposes. Once matured, we could face out hbwin. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Errors-with-11032-tp23521549p23574376.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
