Il Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:42:20 -0500 Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 11:28 , Mattia Barbon wrote:
>
> > I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
> > interfaces are still using different names for
> > Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP. Which one is correct?
>
> Mattia,
>
> Both are correct. Sort of. :) Parrot_INTERP is an opaque type,
> which is
> a technique for improving binary compatibility. In the core, which
> is
I know that. The problem, as you note in your next mail, is:
Parrot_Interp already has opacity guards, and _is used as an opaque
type in embedding interface_. Now having two parts of the _external_
interface use differently-named opaque types for the same thing
seems pointless, if not confusing.
I personally prefer the internal and externalidentifier having the
same name, but I don't care, as long as the external interface is coherent.
> always compiled as a unit, the fields of the interpreter structure
> can
> be accessed directly. But to preserve binary compatibility if the
> struct
> layout is modified, embedders and extensions (which are built
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Currently, embedders use Parrot_Interp, while extenders use
Parrot_INTERP...
Regards
Mattia
