On Thu, 05 Jun 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Hi Viktor,
> > PROTOTYPE [STATIC] FUNCTION <FUNCNAME>[(<FUNCPARAMS,...>)]
> >This way also resolves the problem with parameters validation
> >and prototyping for strong type checking so in the future we
> >will have support for sth like above for normal .prg code.
> >As a side effect it may resolve also this problem.
> Nonsense and a waste of time. ("Fából vaskarika" in Hungarian)
I'm not sure you understood.
We will need such prototyping for strong type checking in .prg code.
Probably the side effect of this will be also addressing the issue
with functions declared inside #pragma begindump. If it will then
good, for sure I do not plan to invest any additional time for
intentional blocking it :-)
> I see we have -ki (hb_inline) enabled by default.
> Can't we make this disabled in next version (or even
> current one)? Also I think we'd need another switch to
> disable BEGINDUMP/ENDDUMP. It's happened several time
> that I've spent time looking around for C stuff, and
> at the end I had to realize that it's inline C code.
> Quite a waste of time. Not to mention the numerous
> non-portable code you mention.
I'll add such switch. And if you want we can also change
the default setting to disable hb_inline() support.
> It can be very rarely useful if I want to quickly
> test a small program needs C code (using bld.bat),
> but I'd perfectly be happy to use a Harbour switch
> to enable the feature in these few cases.
> As for hb_inline() I'd remove it completely.
We should never have this feature. But it was added and there
is a code which uses it. I've invest too much time to make it
working as real inline in the .prg syntax adopting new PP for
it that now I would leave it as is. Probably only disabling -ki
in default compiler setting so user will have to enable it
explicitly.
best regards,
Przemek
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
