[Harbour] RE: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT - ADSADT

2009-11-27 Thread bhays
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

Re: [Harbour] RE: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT - ADSADT

2009-11-27 Thread Viktor Szakáts
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

Re: [Harbour] Re: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT - ADSADT

2009-11-27 Thread Mindaugas Kavaliauskas
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

Re: [Harbour] Re: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT - ADSADT

2009-11-27 Thread Viktor Szakáts
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

[Harbour] Re: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT - ADSADT

2009-11-26 Thread Przemysław Czerpak
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