Re: [Letodb-developers] 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)

[Pavel T. <tp...@ma...>]

Hello, Miguel!

 MAM> at xharbour

 MAM> HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_TIME exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)
 MAM> HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ANY exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)

 MAM> this 2 FT only exist at RDD with the purpose to read inexistent DBF
 MAM> ar fields of ADT created with ADSADT but not are DBFCDX standard
 MAM> compatible DBF.

 MAM> instead of

 MAM> HB_FT_TIMESTAMP and HB_FT_DATETIME

 MAM> of xharbour are VFP complatible

 MAM> HB_FT_ANY

 MAM> of ADSADT breaks compatibility with DBF because V meanings
 MAM> "VarLenght" ar DBF and "Any" at ADT

 MAM> HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_TIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ANY exists yet

 MAM> This types were borrowed from ADT format, but are not DBF format

 MAM> instead of

 MAM> HB_FT_DATETIME
 MAM> HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_CURRENCY
 MAM> HB_FT_VARLENGTH
 MAM> HB_FT_INTEGER
 MAM> HB_FT_DOUBLE
 MAM> HB_FT_FLOAT
 MAM> HB_FT_OLE
 MAM> HB_FT_PICTURE
 MAM> HB_FT_STRING (binary and normal)
 MAM> HB_FT_MEMO (binary and normal)

 MAM> I think that the implementation of xharbour respect all formats

 MAM> At xharbour autoincremental (flag and FT) works properly, but not
 MAM> at harbour.

IMHO this FT identifiers is used only under letodb.
HB_FT_DATETIME and HB_FT_TIMESTAMP is the synonym of HB_FT_DAYTIME and
HB_FT_MODTIME

With best regards, Pavel Tsarenko.