IMO the most important is not to create mess with the naming, since it would cut us from doing anything in the future without creating all sorts of complications.
If this issue is so pressing for you *now*, write some #translates to fix up the names. WVG may refer to XBP functions or functionality, but it won't make it a portable Xbase++ compatibility lib. I suggest to read corresponding plans posted on the list. Brgds, Viktor On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Massimo Belgrano <mbelgr...@deltain.it> wrote: > IMO The most important is that in wvg sample referring to xbp function > > > 2009/5/28 Viktor Szakáts <harbour...@syenar.hu>: >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Massimo Belgrano <mbelgr...@deltain.it> >> wrote: >>> WvgActiveXControl cited on your changelog is XbpActiveXControl in xbase++ >> >> The current name is right. We've agreed that such Xbase++-like classes >> implemented in GTWVG get the names WVG* to not block us from creating >> a portable, standalone Xbase++ compatibility lib. >> >> If such compatibility class will be implemented in Harbour, it should be >> done in hbxbp, built on AX facilities implemented in hbwin. >> >> Brgds, >> Viktor >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list >> Harbour@harbour-project.org >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> > > > > -- > Massimo Belgrano > _______________________________________________ > 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
