> Viktor Szakáts wrote: >> I don't mind if a PHB_ITEM container is used if it makes sense, or makes >> coding simpler or documented. > > But it doesn't.
Emphasis (in this specific case) on 'documented'. >>> I want to see the second version (without extra item) working by default in >>> the final code, but I want to leave HB_USE_ITEM define, to make users have >>> a sample of various ways to cross-reference GC blocks. They can see both of >>> versions, compare it and understand how things work. >> I'd like to leave only one option and it's a strong opinion. I see no point >> at all to give user options for such a small and low-level details >> ... >> Such information is useful only for expert users and should be added to >> /doc, instead of final code. > > I'm not good at writing docs, so, let's remove it from SVN code after you (or > someone else) will add it to the docs :) AFAICT (having read some of your docs), this isn't the case. Anyway, we have only one alternative which uses documented method ATM, so it's not the time yet to document/compare options. We will see where it goes. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
