Hello All,
I am sorry for being too late to response as I intentionally kept anything relates to programming away for some times in order to have my mind refreshed :-) Regarding the issues as per subject, as usual, I would be very much obliged if anyone can post a self-contained program to demonstrate the errors. I am sorry, I am too old to be patient to read narrative description. Bese regards, Andi On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:37:44 -0700 Luis Krause Mantilla <lkrau...@shaw.ca> wrote: > Ron: > > I think it was Andi that brought all these changes from Harbour > so he needs to chime in.... > > On 16-08-2011 08:11, Ron Pinkas wrote: > > ? > > > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Ron Pinkas<ron.pin...@xharbour.com> wrote: > > > >> Would greatly appreciate input from whomever was involved in adding > >> DATETIME support. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On Aug 8, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Ron Pinkas<ron.pin...@xharbour.com> wrote: > >> > >>> BTW, to avoid consequential incompatibility with Harbour, I suggest we > >>> use compatible definitions and API where possible. > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------- > >>> From: "Ron Pinkas"<ron.pin...@xharbour.com> > >>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:27 PM > >>> To:<xharbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net> > >>> Subject: HB_IT_DATE, HB_IT_TIMEFLAG, HB_IT_DATETIME > >>> > >>>> Hi Guys, > >>>> > >>>> It appears that the definitions and usage of: > >>>> > >>>> HB_IT_DATE > >>>> HB_IT_TIMEFLAG > >>>> HB_IT_DATETIME > >>>> > >>>> HB_IS_DATE() > >>>> HB_IS_DATETIME() > >>>> HB_IS_TIMEFLAG() > >>>> > >>>> is inconsistent and not designed with system wide consideration. > >>>> > >>>> On quick read of all relevant sources it appears that the correct fix > >>>> would be to make sure that HB_IT_TIMEFLAG is used indeed as a FLAG where > >>>> HB_IT_DATE must always be be the base value. This means that all API > >>>> which returns a DATETIME value must be corrected to: > >>>> > >>>> pItem->type = HB_IT_DATETIME; > >>>> > >>>> instead of: > >>>> > >>>> pItem->type = HB_IT_TIMEFLAG; > >>>> > >>>> Once this is done then naturally HB_IS_DATE() will correctly returns > >>>> TRUE for either a DATE value or a DATETIME value, since both are indeed > >>>> a form of a DATE value. This in turn will fix currently missing support > >>>> for DATETIME type in calculations, etc., such as hb_vmPlus() and similar. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, all existing instances of HB_IT_TIMEFLAG / HB_IT_DATETIME, > >>>> HB_IS_DATETIME(), and HB_IS_TIMEFLAG() should be searched and verified > >>>> and corrected when needed. All "case" structure where HB_IT_TIMEFLAG has > >>>> specific logic separate from HB_IT_DATE must be verified to be ordered > >>>> such that the HB_IT_TIMEFLAG/HB_IS_DATETIME() "case" is ABOVE the > >>>> HB_IT_DATE "case". > >>>> > >>>> Since I have not taken any active part in the addition of the > >>>> HB_IT_DATETIME support, and I therefore may not be familiar with all > >>>> subtleties of the implementation I will greatly appreciate the response, > >>>> and appropriate fixing to be addressed by the original contributor[s]. > >>>> > >>>> As it is right now the existing support for HB_IT_DATETIME is BROKEN and > >>>> incomplete and fixing this should be a PRIORITY IMO. > >>>> > >>>> Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
