Viktor Szakáts wrote:
>
> This is totally wrong solution. Why do you want to
> force absolute paths for users? Because it's simplest
> to program? IOW you force each HBIDE user to actively
> work to workaround the lack of attention to details
> in HBIDE code.
>
I agree.
Here is my argument: hbMK2 has filters parsing at -o level
which I cannot manage. I have requested you many times
to give a proper token to output name but you have always
deferred it. So what is wrong if I provide an option at -o
level or provide a slot as a field?
I will retuen to this point a bit later to rework the detection logic.
> To me this is unacceptable. If my assumption is wrong,
> then HBIDE should try to emulate the logic to find
> the non-absolute output name at it's original position.
>
> I can help you that hbmk2 does no magic related to
> output filename, and it actually launches it using
> the exact same name as displayed on screen (which is
> detected by HBIDE).
>
You stay in the folder where executable is, hbIDE do not.
Just provide a token with full path, that's it.
-----
enjoy hbIDEing...
Pritpal Bedi
http://hbide.vouch.info/
--
View this message in context:
http://harbour-devel.1590103.n2.nabble.com/Question-regardin-the-good-hbide-tp5040280p5097459.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
