Re: A less controvertial API addition

2003-10-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We probably need two API entries. One, a vararg version, that just takes a > bunch of PMC pointers (or some sort of (ick) parameter signature), and a > second that assumes you've set the registers up properly already. Done both now. The (ick) signature va

Re: A less controvertial API addition

2003-10-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While we're fighting^Wdiscussing the freezing system, there's a simpler > > thing we need to have added in. We need an API entry point that allows C > > code to invoke a sub/method PMC. > > What about params?

Re: A less controvertial API addition

2003-10-21 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While we're fighting^Wdiscussing the freezing system, there's a simpler > thing we need to have added in. We need an API entry point that allows C > code to invoke a sub/method PMC. What about params? I already thought about that a bit, and when looking at

A less controvertial API addition

2003-10-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
While we're fighting^Wdiscussing the freezing system, there's a simpler thing we need to have added in. We need an API entry point that allows C code to invoke a sub/method PMC. This needs to be done both for the embedding API (we'll wrap it) where the embedding app will call in, but also for thing