Hi Xavi,
Many thanks, in its current form, we can add it to hbw32.lib.
I'd suggest to do this after the release.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.08.09., at 19:10, Xavi wrote:
Hi Viktor,
For my part is no objection to incorporate _RunHide() in the
project, with the name you want and where you want.
Hi Viktor,
For my part is no objection to incorporate _RunHide() in the project, with the
name you want and where you want.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.xharbour/browse_thread/thread/3378461f63826ce0/f842512cc396adf6#f842512cc396adf6
But I would like that a linux C coder ad
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that was not your point, but IMO __hrb*() functions should
> be named hb_hrb*() since they are not really internal features
> anymore.
>
> Should we do it now?
I'd delete the two spawn*.prg tests.
They are outdated
Hi Lorenzo,
There are some old tests that still use hb_run as "__hrbrun".
Well, that was not your point, but IMO __hrb*() functions should
be named hb_hrb*() since they are not really internal features
anymore.
Should we do it now?
Moreover we now have an util called hbrun which is more a
There are some old tests that still use hb_run as "__hrbrun".
Moreover we now have an util called hbrun which is more an "hrbrun".
Sorry for the "word game", but I was looking for the differences
between __RUN and HB_RUN and it took me a while to get the right info
so this may confuse users too.
