On Wed, 1 May 2002 12:30:42 -0700, Jan Kotas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It makes sense. I was under the assumption that strict SEH interop was required, but that goes to show how good my assumptions are :-). Thanks a lot for your time answering these questions. Cristian >There are many possible answers to this one. If I have to pick two, >they will be: > >- We are focused on portability. The exceptions interop is not >portable in general, so it is not a priority for us. > >- We have shipped the source code, anybody can implement it and share >the implementation with the community. > >-Jan > >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >rights. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cristian Diaconu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:40 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] SEH Interop via PAL - .NET vs Rotor > > >Actually, another question... > >If PAL_LocalFrame() does provide the fix, why doesn't Rotor use it? > >Cristian
