Viktor Szakáts wrote:
>
> I think until we have the basics right, it's not
> a reasonable goal to set current patterns or API
> in stone.
>
> Unfortunately more and more code is created with
> current pattern, which makes it just more and more
> difficult to fix the basic problems in low-level
> code while keeping higher level code updated
> (not to mention "invisible" for us code outside
> our SVN).
>
> This has been exactly the problem I've been trying
> to shade a light on since many many months.
>
> Bazaar is a nice thing, but if someone builds an Eiffel
> Tower on top of the bazaar, it's just not trivial
> to swap the foundation without troubling the Tower.
>
> All this means that there is less and less chance
> (= more and more required effort) to ever make f.e.
> HBQT's memory management right, or to fix centralized
> slots system, just to name two crucial issues.
>
> This in turn means that the original high expectations
> for HBQT becoming "the" GUI for Harbour are vanishing.
>
> Given the effort put into this and the importance of
> a GUI in general, this is a pity.
>
I agree with all your assertions in toto.
But the bottom-line is, I am unable to find a solution
to coordinate when Qt destroys an object and when
Harbour request it to destroy.
Unless someone more gifted join this effort,
like Istavin tried and offered some constructs, I do not
see much progress. Time-and-again I try with a new
concept, but at points it fails. The current implementation
is the best so far.
-----
enjoy hbIDEing...
Pritpal Bedi
http://hbide.vouch.info/
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/hbqt-a-couple-of-questions-tp4874292p4879730.html
Sent from the harbour-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
