> Does this look like the right change to everyone? I can check it in > (and on the 1.6 branch too) if it looks OK. I have no problems with this (but am a little confused - see below) > While I have your attention, Rene also suggests the convention of > "bcpp_python20.lib" for the Borland-format lib file, with other > compilers (library formats) supported in future similarly. Works for me > -- anyone have any problems with that? I would prefer python20_bcpp.lib, but that is not an issue. I am a little confused by the intention, tho. Wouldnt it make sense to have Borland builds of the core create a Python20.lib, then we could keep the pragma in too? If people want to use Borland for extensions, can't we ask them to use that same compiler to build the core too? That would seem to make lots of the problems go away? But assuming there are good reasons, I am happy. It wont bother me for some time yet ;-) <just deleted a rant about the fact that anyone on Windows who values their time in more than cents-per-hour would use MSVC, but deleted it ;-> Sometimes-the-best-things-in-life-arent-free ly, Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4