On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi Viktor,
> > If you only had not time to update some code for WinCE builds > > then please at least leave a not about it or add iTODO warning. > > Now seems that we have to verify all > > #if [!] defined( HB_OS_WIN_CE ) > > conditional compilation macros and mark the ones which cannot be > > implemented due to limited WinCE API and the ones which can be > > implemented but so far we had no time for it. > Such guard in most cases is equivalent to "further > check needed for WinCE". Unfortunately the topic > is wide and very time consuming, so there was no > precise research made for every function, ever > committed to hbwin. So please leave a note that you haven't tested it adding such guard. It will help other developer to locate places which have to be tested. Now we have to repeated tests for things which were verified some time ago. It will be also very good to add to such notes information about used C compiler because there are some differences between them and it's possible that some functions exists in MinGWCE but not in MSVC and some other are only in MSVC. > I think we should keep this behavior, since for .prg > level function is better to not pass over the whole > ugliness of low-level WinCE programming, plus .prg > code doesn't really have the tools to verify the exact > low-level details (compiler version, API version, etc). IMO the only one thing which is good is sth what helps Harbour users. If sth creates problems for them without any significant improvements then we should not force such solutions. Not working PRG functions without any information that they are not implemented yet just to only hide link time errors is the worst possible choice. It does not help anyone. It only hides real problems. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
