Hi
Randy Portnoff-2 wrote:
>
> Thank you for that detailed explanation!
>
> At 12:19 PM 7/7/2009, you wrote:
>>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009, Randy Portnoff wrote:
>
Can you please pick a new topic instead of posting a reply
to another thread for entirely new one.
Regards
Pritpal Bedi
--
View this
Thank you for that detailed explanation!
At 12:19 PM 7/7/2009, you wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009, Randy Portnoff wrote:
Hi,
> Can you please tell me if the ADS bug (below) is only an issue with
> compressed fields or does it affect non-compressed fields as well?
It was very old problem exploited
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009, Randy Portnoff wrote:
Hi,
> Can you please tell me if the ADS bug (below) is only an issue with
> compressed fields or does it affect non-compressed fields as well?
It was very old problem exploited by recent modification.
>From the beginning our ADSRDD was ignoring error c
Hi Przemyslaw,
Can you please tell me if the ADS bug (below) is only an issue with
compressed fields or does it affect non-compressed fields as well?
TIA!
Regards,
Randy.
* harbour/contrib/rddads/ads1.c
! fixed minimal record buffer size calculation
! fixed adsGetValue() method hac
