Ron, I just want to clarify that when I said:
> I've just tested your sample with current xharbour cvs, it does not corrupt > memory (I did not test it with valgrind like tools, though) and while in > C you > have pointers, so you can do every kind of errors, xbase dialects should > protect you from this kind of errors (or at least try to). for 'this kind of errors' I meant errors caused by pointers which corrupt memory and not illogical choices made by programmers. That said, I mostly agree with you that C compilers (btw, C is 40 years old or more) don't try to implement any control since the programmer "has to know", but here we are talking about a higher level language and, I hope, a more modern language, namely (x)harbour, where speed is not the only issue (as it was 40 years ago for C), since right now we have plenty of speed and instead is programmer available time which does not follow Moore's law. So I'd prefer something a little slower but which can help me pinpoint my errors (like in the code where an object stores a reference to itself and has a destructor). Anyway, I don't think that you're trying to escape the issue, I say that this is a 'philosophical' issue because the truth lies on both sides, and as such it is not possible to decide, once for all, what is the right thing to do; they're both right and both have compromises in what they try to accomplish. Best regards. Maurilio. -- __________ | | | |__| Maurilio Longo |_|_|_|____| farmaconsult s.r.l. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
