At 11:27 AM 10/10/2001 +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
>On 10/09/01 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >For sanity's sake, I don't suppose you'd consider
> > >
> > >typedef void* (*vtable_func_t)();
> > >
> > >to make it
> > >
> > >vtable_func_t vtable_funcs[VTABLE_SIZE];
> >
> > I'd be thrilled. Abstract types are A Good Thing. In fact, I'll go make it
> > so right now. :)
>
>... and to go a step further in sanity and maintainability, I'd suggest
>using a structure with properly typed function pointers instead of an
>array:
>
>typedef void (*parrot_pmc_add) (PMC *dest, PMC *a, PMC *b);
>typedef void (*parrot_pmc_dispose) (PMC *cookie);
>...
If all the versions of the add routine take the same parameters, we'll end
up doing this. At the moment I'm not 100% sure they will. (Probably, but...)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
