I first heard of the Pascal convention in connection with Windows programming, shortly after the KT extinction. Right or wrong (MS' track record leaves me biased), they did it in the name of efficiency.
It is true that we can certainly use more code for everyday tasks, but that list is somewhat long. It is unrealistic to assume that we could ever provide all needed functionality, nor is Smalltalk code always appropriate on performance grounds, so some type of callout/back facility will be essential. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo changing the game Mariano, Unfortunately the convention is from the library provider not exactly the OS. This is a consequence of all infrastructure in present days be done in C, but in a non distant future you would also see Pascal calling convention. . . I think this aspect would be less important to user (general application programmers [instead of core or 'system' programmers]) if we had already a more complete set of libraries for typical functionality needed in the daily chores. -- Cesar Rabak Em 12/02/2010 14:26, Mariano Martinez Peck < [email protected] > escreveu: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It is interesting to note that of course, after this was added to 3.9, >> >>> there was >>> someone *very hard* arguing that adding Pragmas was a very >>> dumb idea... >>> >>> Who that person was is left as an exercise to the reader of course ;-) >> >>> >> Hint: FFI has its own proprietary hardcoded pragma format. It >> >>> unnecessary complicates the compiler even when not loaded. Not to >> >>> mention that it breaks all tools that have their own parser, such as >> >>> RB for example. >> > > And I hate having to write > I would love to be the same and that someone else takes care, not me (the > > user). > Do you know if there is a reason for this? I imagine that yes. AFAIK apicall: uses the stdcall calling convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#stdcall), while cdecl: uses the cdecl calling convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#cdecl). So it depends on the function's calling convention which you should use (and not the OS). Thanks Levente. I noticed what you said. But it seems that a OS usually takes one of those conventions as default or at least most commonly used. Would be cool to have the default implemented depending in the OS (no need to explicitly say it) and if you don't want it (the default) just put what you want ? Cheers Mariano Levente > > >> >> Lukas >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> http://www.lukas-renggli.ch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
