Hi, On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Viktor Szakáts <harbour...@syenar.hu>wrote:
> Hi All, > > It's unlikely we shall ever support Windows 3.x or Win32s, > and unicows solution works just perfect now to cover Win9x/ME > host versions, so I can see no hard reason to maintain duplicate > code paths for both UNICODE and non-UNICODE Windows API > support. > I have still not yet found an explanation as to what the "unicows solution" is, despite reading all the unicode threads. Perhaps I am not seeing something right in front of my eyes, but as far as I know, now one has said "this is the solution, in unmistakable steps"... all i have heard of is one word: "unicows", and not any steps to take. I tried sticking the unicows.dll where I was executing the .EXE file on a Win9x machine and our program just hung doing nothing. Compiled without the unicode, the .EXE then works on Win9x. So the thought of moving in this direction worries me. When I compile Harbour for our use, we turn off UNICODE mode with a compiler switch everytime to avoid all this confusion. If the solution is having to run a packaged unicows installer on the Win9x machine, then this will become a nuisance for a few hundred people. If a .dll can be simply placed somewhere, then that is okay... but as I've said, this didn't solve anything when I tried doing it. PS: I could care less about Win 3.1x, but some people (surprisingly) still use Win9x with our program. Perhaps they are afraid of technology? > > Having only UNICODE path could greatly simplify code in > many crucial points, making it easier to maintain, > extend, debug and keep bug free. Especially if we want > to move towards internal (HVM) unicode support in the > future. > > It definitely sounds like a good idea that would save a lot of time for the Harbour project, so obviously it has my vote provided I can find a simple solution my concerns above. :/ > Any opinions on this? > > Viktor >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
