> It wasn't my intention make you reply that, I just do a statement trying to > wide the view about the problem. As I wrote I completely agree about the > whole decision and specially your last paragraphs as below. Maybe my poor > English have been confusing about my message.
Sorry if message seemed to offend you, I didn't mean it that way, and any opinion or reaction (like yours) which leads toward any direction is always useful to hear and very much welcome. I tried to reiterate on the key problems, in the hope this time it gets a reception (again not just by you, but everyone interested in this or pushing the problem). BTW, back to dropping "legacy" stuff is an interesting topic, but at the same time the _hottest potato_. As time goes by we can revisit such topics, since probably it won't make sense to support f.e. MS-DOS or Windows 95 ten years from now, or there will be a point where Clipper cross-compatibility won't be a real-life issue anymore, since there won't be any real systems running MS-DOS apps. We will see it in the future, and we will see what are those parts which we can benefit from by revising them. F.e. 8.3 naming limit, or non-UNICODE Windows builds, or building Harbour on MS-DOS hosts, to mention some of these from recent times, and there are language-related items here as well. For sure for now all of these seem too early to address, and usually stir a lot of heat, that's why we should rather concentrate on stuff which is inline with our current goals and possibilities. Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
