At Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:56:24 -0200, Rodolfo Carvalho wrote:
> I'm not actually using MysterX, but for what I understood, shouldn't the
> above sentence read the opposite?
>
> "... porting from `mysterx' to `ffi/com' (the new implementation) will be
> encouraged."
Right - thanks!
_
Hello Matthew,
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 08:53, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Thanks for your responses to the MysterX poll. Based on those
> responses, here's the plan:
>
> [...]
> * Reimplement the COM parts (core and events) as `ffi/com'. The
> interface of `ffi/com' will not match `mysterx' exactly
Thanks for your responses to the MysterX poll. Based on those
responses, here's the plan:
* Mark the ActiveX parts of ActiveX as to be removed after v5.2.1
(i.e. after the next release). No one claims to be using the part
of MysterX to be removed.
* Reimplement the COM parts (core and eve
Matthew,
I use the MysterX COM layer of sections 2.1-2.2 for working with Microsoft's ADO
library
I have no intentions/ability to use the other sections
I would be happy to share all my ADO related code if it would be of benefit.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.r
P.S.
tl;dr: No one would help her plant the seeds, harvest the wheat, make
the flour, bake the bread. Everyone helped her eat the bread.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> I have used the basic COM layer (2.1-2.2) to do some one-off
> utilities. Such as moving data from M
I have used the basic COM layer (2.1-2.2) to do some one-off
utilities. Such as moving data from MS SQL Server using the ADODB COM
interface, into an Excel application using its COM interface.
Although I'm not actively using those utilities at the moment, it
seems a shame to lose that interoperabi
Hello Matthew,
I am using the basic COM layer (sections 2.1-2.2).
I am not using the event layer (section 2.3), but I might use it in the
future.
I am not using the ActiveX layer (section 3) and I am not planning to
use it.
Regards,
José
On 29-12-2011 09:30, Matthew Flatt wrote:
If you us
7 matches
Mail list logo
