Xailer & OZ Software

Hi
It appears that MT support in Harbour is more mature and stable than that
of xHarbour. Is it possible that Xailer could use the MT support of Harbour
or does it require Xailer to be based Harbour? I guess I am wondering how
the MT support could be greatly improved for use with Xailer.
Simon

Simon,
> It appears that MT support in Harbour is more mature and stable than that
> of xHarbour. Is it possible that Xailer could use the MT support of
> Harbour
> or does it require Xailer to be based Harbour?
It's needed a Harbour version of Xailer. It's in our plans, and we'll work
on it very soon.
--
Regards,
Jose F. Gimenez
http://www.xailer.com
http://www.xailer.info

Really? You're doing a Harbour version?
Is that necessary? I mean, aside from things like MT Support, isn't
xHarbour an extended superset of Harbour?

Childers,
> Really? You're doing a Harbour version?
Yes.
> Is that necessary?
Well, we allways said that Xailer will support Harbour sooner or later. Now,
after releasing Xailer 2.0, we belive that this is the time to do it.
> I mean, aside from things like MT Support, isn't xHarbour an extended
> superset of Harbour?
It was so for a long time, but it's not longer true. At this time, Harbour
has almost language extensions that xHarbour has. Of course, it doesn't mean
that we are going to drop xHarbour. We'll support both compilers.
--
Regards,
Jose F. Gimenez
http://www.xailer.com
http://www.xailer.info

>>It was so for a long time, but it's not longer true. At this time,
Harbour has almost language extensions that xHarbour has. Of course, it
doesn't mean that we are going to drop xHarbour. We'll support both
compilers.<<
I understand, sounds good. I'll look up Harbour again, haven't checked
it out in years.

The new version of Harbour now includes just about everything that xHarbour
has and in some cases I think exceeds xHarbour.
Childers <NoSpamPlease@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>Really? You're doing a Harbour version?
>
>Is that necessary? I mean, aside from things like MT Support, isn't
>xHarbour an extended superset of Harbour?
>

Xailer is an excellent product having it support both compilers sounds even
better to me.
"Jose F. Gimenez" <jfgimenez@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>Simon,
>
>> It appears that MT support in Harbour is more mature and stable than that
>> of xHarbour. Is it possible that Xailer could use the MT support of
>> Harbour
>> or does it require Xailer to be based Harbour?
>
>It's needed a Harbour version of Xailer. It's in our plans, and we'll work
>on it very soon.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Jose F. Gimenez
>http://www.xailer.com
>http://www.xailer.info
>
>

Hi,
> Is that necessary? I mean, aside from things like MT Support, isn't
> xHarbour an extended superset of Harbour?
Yes but it also "extends" some troubles. Check this:
http://harbour-project.svn.sourceforge. ... harbour-pr oject/trunk/harbour/doc/xhb-diff.txt
Regards,
José Lalí­n