Hi Pritpal,
For me it's okay if they are all guarded with a macro (HB_XBP_EXT).
All extensions have to be portable to all QT supported platforms
though.
BTW, does this mean that Xbase++ features and compatibility is now
reaching completion?
Yes, these have to he guarded.
Feature compatibility will be 100% at final stages.
Right now some parts need more work and also other
parts implemented. For example XbpFont() and XbpBitmap()
classes are needed to simulate other parts exact behavior
where these are one of the alternate arguments.
But eventually it will be. The delay is due to the fact
that three-and-a-half months before I have NOT even
heard the word "QT". So the learning curve is a bit
longer.
Sorry, I didn't want to hurry you. You're doing a very
nice job and the progress is very impressive.
My only suggestion would be to concentrate on implementing
Xbase++ features first, and just then move on to extensions.
But, however you feel :)
BTW I see a striking similarity between many instance
variables and method calling convention between Xbase++ and
QT. I am wondering QT is inspired by Xbase++ or the reverse is the
case.
Could be, QT started back around 1996, Xbase++ some years
later and even later were introduced XBP classes, but I
have not much more info than this :)
BTW, could you check why the tab color differences between
Linux/OSX and Windows builds: (maybe we just need some
color which works on all systems)
http://www.syenar.hu/harbour/demoxbp_linux.png
http://www.syenar.hu/harbour/demoxbp_osx.png
http://www.syenar.hu/harbour/demoxbp_win.png
[ the missing statusbar content in Linux isn't a bug,
I've just clicked on the menu before doing the screenshot ]
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
