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

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: [xHarbour-developers] RDD: ADT -> ADSADT

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

Re: [xHarbour-developers] Strange compiler behavior using dot

-Messaggio Originale- Da: "Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes" A: "Enrico Maria Giordano" ; "xHarbour Developers Mailing List" Data invio: venerdì 27 novembre 2009 0.35 Oggetto: Re: [xHarbour-developers] Strange compiler behavior using dot > Enrico > > not for xharbour, since . is the name