Hi Andi, WCB :-)
Please read my original message, i just reread it, and I beleive it perfectly
explains the issue in details, except that you apparntly fixed the DATETIME
support for calculations like hb_vmPlus(), though I didn't get a chance to
review it. Here is my original message:
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will greatly appreciate your review. I would also strongly suggest consultation
with Przmek and synching datetime support with Harbour since a language TYPE is
a very low level core feature, which is a foundation issue with regards to RDD
as well.
Ron
On Oct 16, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Andi Jahja <andi.ja...@yahoo.co.id> wrote:
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA® Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
xHarbour-developers mailing list
xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
