On Tuesday 12 May 2009 16:03:34 Viktor Szakáts wrote:
> Hi Teo,
> Please undo this change, this is an extremely bad idea,
> and ruins the whole concept of having one proper hbwin
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any specification in the hole Harbour tree
regarding on what must be included in the hbwin library. Exception made on
this brief entry:
doc/dirstruc.txt
- Collection of Windows specific utility functions.
> library. Even worse solution to solve a temporary problem
> of a few users.
>
> The solution is to either use old OLE, or if it doesn't fit
> you should either not block moving to the new version or
> help adding missing bits to new implementation.
By removing the WIN_PRN class out of hbwin I was precisely promoting the use
of the new ole lib "hbole" and consequently on their improvement (if any).
In fact, WIN_PRN class stored in hbwin lib simply blocks the usage and testing
of the "hbole" lib for users that need WIN_PRN functionality.
>
> Quite disappointing to see that you completely ignored
> my message regarding this topic a few days ago.
What message is that ?
You should post that message in my message requesting advice specifically on
this matter in last friday: "Using OLE and WIN_PRN classes"
I just react to the only reply to this message by an user having the same
problem.
best regards,
Teo
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
