On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rick McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an > interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity to reassess whether > APIs belonged in the set and also pointed out some holes where > additional APIs should be provided. I've been watching your test cases and interleaving commits to the interpreter and could see that was what you were doing. <grin> > In the process of doing this, I started to question whether the Table > set of APIs even belong on the list. I like the ability to use Table objects in the external methods / functions rather than stems. I especially like being able to return a Table object. However, if you think using SendMessage is just as efficient in the C / C++ code, then removing the Table APIs seems fine to me. What happens when you are returning a Table object from a API method? It would be returned as a RexxObject. Would it just then work as expected in the Rexx code? Is that less efficient? -- Mark Miesfeld ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
