On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi Mindaugas,
> I understand that the reason why it is called hack is that RDD pack()
> method does not have any additional structure to pass parameters like for
> example DBORDERCREATEINFO in ordcreate() method. What is the status of RDD
> co
Hi Mindaugas,
I'd say we must stick with compatibility for .prg
level Clipper legacy functions. However, we're
free to implement any extensions in the HB_*() .prg
level function namespace (like HB_DBPACK()), and
for RDDs, even in low-level RDD implementation. Here
the only concern is to aid 3rd p
Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
In the past someone added hack for EVAL/EVERY to PACK DBF RDD message
passing parameters inside item used to collect results so it's still
overloaded by sth. I can add workaround for it but I cannot promise
that it will work because it's local user invention which came t
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Przemyslaw
Czerpak
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 5:02 PM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] __DBPACK bug in 1.0.1
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
Hi Lorenzo,
> > If it's a hack, I'd vote to remove it, or
> >
This is something I do too.
[ __DBPACK() was not working too well for memo
fields in Clipper, AFAIR. I don't use memo fields,
so I may be wrong, and maybe Harbour has this fixed. ]
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.10.09., at 17:52, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I think it's much safer to use COPY TO ... / FRENAME()
> Probably we should only add support for RENAME RDD method just like
> we have dbEXISTS and dbDROP so user will not have to know the details
> details
+1 to clean this away and to have db rename feature.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.10.09., at 17:02, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
Hi Lorenzo,
If it's a hack, I'd vote to remove it, or
implement it properly. Looks like skeletons are
falling out of the closet
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
Hi Lorenzo,
> > If it's a hack, I'd vote to remove it, or
> > implement it properly. Looks like skeletons are
> > falling out of the closet :(
> I agree, PACK is a critical command and should be as safe as possible.
And it's probably the reason why Cli
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's a hack, I'd vote to remove it, or
> implement it properly. Looks like skeletons are
> falling out of the closet :(
I agree, PACK is a critical command and should be as safe as possible.
best regards,
Lorenzo
Hi folks,
If it's a hack, I'd vote to remove it, or
implement it properly. Looks like skeletons are
falling out of the closet :(
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.10.09., at 13:27, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi Mindaugas,
after moving from some old Har
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi Mindaugas,
> after moving from some old Harbour version to 1.0.1 in production
> environment my app started to GPF on __DBPACK.
> I've debugged code a little bit. After evaluation of
>SELF_EVALBLOCK( ( AREAP ) pArea, pBlock )
> inside hb_
Hi,
after moving from some old Harbour version to 1.0.1 in production
environment my app started to GPF on __DBPACK.
I've debugged code a little bit. After evaluation of
SELF_EVALBLOCK( ( AREAP ) pArea, pBlock )
inside hb_dbfPack(), the result of HB_IS_BLOCK( pBlock ) is FALSE,
because hb
12 matches
Mail list logo
