>> BTW IMO getting this right is more important than any >> HBIDE work. HBIDE works enough that everyone can play >> with it, but it conveys very bad image that there are >> everyday problems in Linux f.e. >> > > Yes, for sure, but still I am handicapped on account of > Linux behavior. Many are resolved and rest will be resolved. > As far as destructors behavior, I am really at a loss why > on one OS Qt behaves properly and on another does not. > If the behavior is consistent, we can fix easily, but > under current scenario it is indifferent and here lies > the crux of delay.
It doesn't work right on any of the platforms, but apparently on Windows the problems are less visible. GPF's are still normal on Windows HBIDE, too, even after many of the problems were masked. We've been discussing the problems even yesterday in great detail. Currently we're counting on luck (or manual hacks) to not have GPFs in HBQT. Until all places where there is any theoretical/potential GPF get fixed, we can never be sure of anything. That's the basic problem with HBQT. > No Linux user has come forward to play with hbQT through hbIDE > to forward any solution, so I am just stumbling upon the > ideas which I forward and someone has to test. It's not a Linux problem. So no Linux user can give you any Linux specific fix for these problems. At least we have some GPFs to test the issues with. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
