On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Phil Krylov wrote: Hik,
> Of course I can do it and will do it when I have time, I only would > like to see that it has established in Harbour. Basically, I don't > like the syntax, why was .ARCH. chosen, what do these dots mean, are > they somehow related to xBase syntax for logical values and operators? > ;) Are there any other samples of usage of such syntax? Does someone > else feel it like me? I also do not find it as ideal solution but as alternative we have to add new switch. If we want to use -undef: then the right side value cannot be valid identifier and it's the reason why I added dots (I chose character which does not have special meaning in different shells to avoid unecessary quoting). If you prefer separate switch for such functionality then I'll add it. Please only chose the name for such switch. > > Let's hope so. The other annoying bit is __PLATFORM__Windows > > and __PLATFORM__Linux. Hopefully someone will fix them there. > I think we ([x]Harbour) should define both versions in the current > situation. It was of course a bad choice to make them mixed-case > initially, but I think that it should be kept for compatibility. It's quite long time when in Harbour these macros were converted to upper case so users updated their code. Adding support for mixed case macros to Harbour will only confuse them. Now the problem is mostly related to xHarbour and this has to be xHarbour team decision. xHarbour developers should decide if they want to support both macros or rather force code updating. In longer terms the second solution seems to be the best choice. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
