On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Maurilio Longo wrote:
Hi,
> ok thanks, I did not look into thfuncx! :), that said, it does not need to be
> inside
>
> while ::active
> enddo
>
> loop, since, in case the code is executed several times, the thread object
> executing it is always the same, am I right?
Yes,
Przemyslaw,
ok thanks, I did not look into thfuncx! :), that said, it does not need to be
inside
while ::active
enddo
loop, since, in case the code is executed several times, the thread object
executing it is always the same, am I right?
Maurilio.
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 20
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Maurilio Longo wrote:
Hi,
> there is a call to
> ThreadObject( Self )
> inside ::start() method of tthread class, is it needed? What does it really
> does given that the result is thrown away?
Look at ThreadObject() implementation in thfuncx.prg.
It sets value which is later
Przemyslaw,
I mean contrib/hbxpp/tthreadx.prg's tthread class.
Maurilio.
Maurilio Longo wrote:
> Przemyslaw,
>
> there is a call to
>
> ThreadObject( Self )
>
> inside ::start() method of tthread class, is it needed? What does it really
> does given that the result is thrown away?
>
> Thanks
Przemyslaw,
there is a call to
ThreadObject( Self )
inside ::start() method of tthread class, is it needed? What does it really
does given that the result is thrown away?
Thanks
Maurilio.
--
__
| | | |__| Maurilio Longo
|_|_|_|| farmaconsult s.r.l.
__
Przemyslaw,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
>
> BTW Maurilio you were asking about some compatibility
> problem with TTHREAD class. If you know xbase++ then
> please update this code. Not everything can be emulated
> i.e. Harbour (just like Clipper) does not
> Uhm,
>
> xpp should be xxpp :)
>
> I'd say that we should prefix them vith 'hb' like in hbxpp or otherwise
> nothing.
In this case xhb lib should become hbxhb.
For me either is good, as long as we stay consistent.
For sure these are nothing more technically than
simple libs, so 'hb' prefix
Uhm,
xpp should be xxpp :)
I'd say that we should prefix them vith 'hb' like in hbxpp or otherwise nothing.
Best regards.
Maurilio.
Viktor Szakáts wrote:
> Hi Maurilio,
>
>> Viktor,
>>
>> I'd say that clipper, all versions, inside core, while xpp and vfp in contrib
>> like hbxpp or even xpp.
Hi Maurilio,
> Viktor,
>
> I'd say that clipper, all versions, inside core, while xpp and vfp in contrib
> like hbxpp or even xpp.
I agree. What names to use?
Somewhat unorthodox, but we can simply prefix them
with 'x' in contrib, so we will have these:
xhb
xpp
xclip
xfship
xfo
Hi,
>> My idea was to move all non-C52e function to
>> "dialect" libs. Questions are: where to draw
>> the line? (f.e. C53 may be better left in core),
>> and how to name and where to place these "dialect"
>> libs.
>
> IMO C53 has to be definitely in core.
> I.e. CL52 RDD model is unfinished
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Massimo Belgrano wrote:
> VFP require switch to compiler to accept the "." instead of the ":" in
> terms of OO syntax to make compilation of VFP code easier.
> Possible do in a lib?
This can be emulated by simple PP rule so it's enough to
create vfp.ch with this line:
#xtr
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi,
> My idea was to move all non-C52e function to
> "dialect" libs. Questions are: where to draw
> the line? (f.e. C53 may be better left in core),
> and how to name and where to place these "dialect"
> libs.
IMO C53 has to be definitely in core.
I
Viktor,
I'd say that clipper, all versions, inside core, while xpp and vfp in contrib
like hbxpp or even xpp.
Best regards.
Maurilio.
Viktor Szakáts wrote:
> Hi Maurilio and All,
>
> On 2010 Feb 15, at 10:39, Maurilio Longo wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I see that there are xpp compatibility obj
> VFP require switch to compiler to accept the "." instead of the ":" in terms
> of OO syntax to make compilation of VFP code easier.
> Possible do in a lib?
It's possible via a .ch header, which can be part of
such lib (package).
Brgds,
Viktor
___
H
VFP require switch to compiler to accept the "." instead of the ":" in
terms of OO syntax to make compilation of VFP code easier.
Possible do in a lib?
2010/2/15 Viktor Szakáts
> Hi Maurilio and All,
>
> On 2010 Feb 15, at 10:39, Maurilio Longo wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I see that there are
Hi Maurilio and All,
On 2010 Feb 15, at 10:39, Maurilio Longo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I see that there are xpp compatibility objects available inside src/rtl and
> inside contrib/xpp which make me wonder why we have a xpp library when part of
> it is already inside runtime library.
>
> Shouldn't t
Hi all,
I see that there are xpp compatibility objects available inside src/rtl and
inside contrib/xpp which make me wonder why we have a xpp library when part of
it is already inside runtime library.
Shouldn't the xpp compatibility bits be inside xpp library only?
Maurilio.
--
__
|
17 matches
Mail list logo
