Hi, > Me neither, I guess that Tortoise always makes the patch with the latest > version... I correct it manually, no problem. > Maybe it's better to do all the changes in the repository or don't change any > in a file under discussion. I don't know.
The best is to send .diffs against latest source tree: svn update svn diff > patch.dif (and .zip it or paste it if it's only for review and short) >> conditional code for layered mode (why?) and you still try >> to force your setcancel hack. It also employs trick to track >> focus, and I'm not sure I like it. > > Conditional compiler time code with layered mode is to link the two issues. > Use layered model by the buffer like a opaque window when is not opaque until > remove the attribute. > It's also faster without WS_EX_LAYERED and simple not have to check if exist > WS_EX_LAYERED and not exit WS_EX_COMPOSITED. > I want to record in the code, in the form of a conditional compiler time, the > option. Please don't add new knobs, I'm working hard to remove them, and for the sake of maintainability and to avoid unnecessary build-types, such built-time knobs are not welcome in the code. > It's not a whim. I've help and moved many codes Clipper to Harbour. I don't > know what answer when asked to why left the execution of a code-protected by > SetCancel(.F.)/SetCancel(.T.) when clicked [X] on title windows bar. I say > that use SET CLOSABLE OFF new in Harbour but they say it's too easy to forget > and the codes are already written. Then I think why not say so in public > devel-list but... I also think it is better to keep quiet because it's my > job. :( > > UpdateCaret try create caret when is in the background, I like to keep clean > Windows LastError whenever possible and easy. In problems like this can be > important. Trick to track focus allow this, can also be interesting to know > this condition. I find it rather offensive/disturbing that you keep posting this piece of code for the 5th time, while it's clearly against concept and project goals and you can't address any of the concerns I raised here several times (and which I won't repeat this time). Moreover it doesn't bring anything new to Harbour, just limits current features by tying to different settings into one. In my view the SVN should contain stuff which is useful for most users, and stuff which we've agreed upon, and not support for special personal needs or undiscussed (rogue) changes at will. If you don't agree with this and/or with major directions of development, it's best to keep a local patch on your system (and optionally publish these patches and binaries for interested users, if there are any). This is one of the advantages of open source. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
