FiveTech Software tech support forums

hi.

karinha wrote:Jimmy, Silvio, comprueba ahora si esto es correcto, por favor.
Jimmy, Silvio, check if this is correct now, please.

Body height of FolderEX is OK, but DIalog changed height which seems me wrong

Jimmy, Silvio, comprueba ahora si esto es correcto, por favor. Jimmy, Silvio, check if this is correct now, please. // C:\FWH\SAMPLES\SILVFLD3.PRG#Include "FiveWin.ch"#Include "Constant.ch"#define DLG_nColorDlg    RGB(245,245,235)#define ...

... use, I remember them Mr Otto that Antonio Linares has created a dedicated session for this type of argument, we should use that session to be more correct. Felicitaciones, el Sr. Otto es realmente una buena cortina, sistemáticamente con estos mensajes en este foro como para forzar "necesariamente" ...

... and domain name like "https://example.com/folder/subfolder". ChatGPT told me to work around this with AP_HeadersIn() . Is this the correct way to do it? Kind regards to all and many thanks in advance, Ruth

I like everything correct: How do I declare, NINDEX?

Me gusta todo correcto: ¿Cómo declaro, NINDEX?

Gracias, tks.

Regards, saludos.

... may be two spaces like "Amy Hadley" so now I need to know counting backwards where the end of the space may be .. So in order to get the correct results I need to know where the space starts and where the space ends, hence the use of the At() and Rat() function ... Is there a better way ...

No, 4 is the correct result. The difference between AT() and RAT() is that RAT() search from right to left but the position is always counted from left. Anyway, Harbour shows the same result as xHarbour.

... me understand further. I combined now that modharbour returns a string for hb_base64encode() whereas in xharbour it returns an array. Is this a correct assumption? Thank you for your help. Or is it that the returned value is too long for a string in xharbour.... Many, many thanks and kind regards ...

karinha wrote:Enrico, is this correct? And the version, is it 4.2.4 of UPX.exe?

Code: Select all  Expand view

C:\UPX4\UPX.EXE -9 --lzma FOTOSPRO.EXE
 

Regards, saludos.

Yes, latest version is 4.2.4:

https://github.com/upx/upx/releases/tag/v4.2.4

The correct syntax (I'm using) is:

Code: Select all  Expand view

C:\UPX4\UPX.EXE --lzma FOTOSPRO.EXE

Enrico, is this correct? And the version, is it 4.2.4 of UPX.exe?

Code: Select all  Expand view

C:\UPX4\UPX.EXE -9 --lzma FOTOSPRO.EXE
 

Regards, saludos.

... dialog is activated and controls are to be shown, the value of "n" is 21 and naturally we get runtime error as subscript out of range. Correct way: for n := 1 to 20 aGet[ 1 ] := MakeGet( n * 20, 50, aVar, n, oWnd ) next n ACTIVATE WINDOW .... //-------------- static function MakeGet( ...

give me 1 instead of zero Because that is the correct answer. aLines  := HB_ATokens( "one", "|" )? aLines // -> { "one" } I not Know how I Have on String now I made aLines := hb_ATokens( cString,"|" ...

give me 1 instead of zero

Because that is the correct answer.

Code: Select all  Expand view

aLines  := HB_ATokens( "one", "|" )
? aLines // -> { "one" }

Hi, Testing Mr. Rao's example, with FWH-23.10, I detect that the "oItem:itemData" attribute of COMBOBOX returns incorrect data with FWH 23.10. Works perfect with FWH-20.07. When reviewing the class I see many changes between the two versions. How and where do I correct it ? ...

Enrico, BUILDX TUTOR04: con ES0 compila con ES2 no compila. What are the correct FLAGS, this is my question. REM %hdir%\bin\harbour %1 /n /i%fwh%\include;%hdir%\include /w3 /p %2 %3 > comp.log 2> warnings.log%hdir%\bin\harbour %1 /m /n /gc0 /w3 /es0 /i%fwh%\include;%hdir%\include ...