Przemek and Mindaugas:
Thanks for the clarification. I missed the finer point when Mindaugas
first discussed ADS, but then the second paragraph said
I propose to rename RDD from ADT ...
as you noticed, I thought we were still talking about just ADS.
So, yes, I would agree ADSADT is better than
We can deprecate it just like we do with some other
features (HB_LEGACY_LEVEL2 f.e., or LEVEL3), which means
it will be dropped in a future version.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2009 Nov 27, at 10:14, bhays wrote:
Przemek and Mindaugas:
Thanks for the clarification. I missed the finer point when
Pre.S. ADSX is not xHarbour related, but this message shows the value of
ADS* in comparison to pure ADS. So, I putt CC xHarbour also.
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
The addition of specific sub-rdds of ADSCDX etc. came years later.
I, and I imagine a lot of other people who started using
Any one who has code like:
proc copy_table( cSrc, cSrcRDD, cDst, cDstRDD )
use (cSrc) via (cSrcRDD)
copy to (cDst) via (cDstRDD)
return
designed to work with different RDDs in Clipper, needs ADS* RDDs to port
his code without introducing unnecessary and incompatible with other
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Brian Hays wrote:
Hi Brian,
The addition of specific sub-rdds of ADSCDX etc. came years later.
I, and I imagine a lot of other people who started using rddads
early on, never had a need to explicitly use those other rdds by name.
Any one who has code like:
proc