Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 1:36 PM +0200 5/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>I think it's now time to review the code a bit and check if the >>whole concept is sane. > Looks OK. Fine. >>Interesting is the dispatch inside objects. These have a delegate >>vtable which runs a PASM function. But it could be redispatched >>before by installing an appropriate MMD version. > I think we're going to want to think about this some. What was the > basic vtable dispatch function that got delegated is now going to be > the default function for the object, and I think we can leave it at > that. > It does mean that we're going to need to get the notification system > in so we can catch updates to the namespaces. I'll split the event/IO > doc I'm working on into pieces and get that out so we can hit this > next. Objects need still further work, initializer, finalizers, and the TODO diamond inheritance test (hint, hint :) >>Finally we should probably rename the VTABLE_<function> macros to e.g. >>DISPATCH_<function> > I think going with the DISPATCH_<function> macros is the way to go for this. Yes. Simplifies .ops file writing a bit. > It all looks just fine, so I'm all for whacking it in for the rest of > the vtable slots and getting this done in one go. I won't have much time, 2 conferences here in Austria in the next 2 weeks. So if someone wants to have a look at patches mmd_vtables 9 and 10 just go ahead. The only missing bits are the general DISPATCH_<function> macro and some dispatch function prototypes. The rest should be more or less some cut'n'paste work. > After that maybe we can beat ICU into submission and cut a 0.1.1 release. :) Yep. When these nasty ICU build issues are sorted out, then its 0.1.1 time. Thanks for looking through it, leo
