Could you not call NsTclVSetCmd() yourself? Look in
nsd/tclvar.c ...
-- Dossy
On 2002.05.03, Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks, has anyone implemented a C NSV API, or does anyone plan to?
Clearly the right thing to do would be to move the functinality in
You may want to look at TclX extension. Either try to load it into AS, or
look at the C code to customize it to your liking. It has extra list
functions as well as keyed lists.
http://tcl.activestate.com/man/tclx8.2/TclX.n.html
On Fri, 3 May 2002 20:44:19 -0400
Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL
Switch to ns_set and just ignore the value side of things.
ns_set update will add a key if it does not exist or replace a key if it does.
Presumably replacing with exactly what was there before is the same as
append a value to a list, but only if the value isn't already on the list
Or hack
You should use the following:
static int
BB_NsvSet(const char *nsvString,
const char *keyString, const char *valueString)
{
Tcl_Obj *o[4];
o[0]=Tcl_NewStringObj(nsv_set,7);
o[1]=Tcl_NewStringObj(nsvString,-1);
o[2]=Tcl_NewStringObj(keyString,-1);
THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC RESPONSE. DO NOT REPLY TO IT. I AM NO LONGER CHECKING MAIL AT
THIS ACCOUNT AND YAHOO WILL NOT FORWARD MESSAGES TO ME.
PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK WITH MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES AND RESEND ANY MESSAGE YOU
HAVE SENT TO THESE:
WORK: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HOME: [EMAIL
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 01:31:42AM -0400, Dossy wrote:
Could you not call NsTclVSetCmd() yourself? Look in
nsd/tclvar.c ...
Hm. NsTclVSetCmd() does stuff to or with the Tcl interpretor, and I
don't HAVE any convenient local interp pointer in my C function to
pass is. Should I be passing the
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:06:09AM -0400, Dossy wrote:
On 2002.05.04, Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 01:31:42AM -0400, Dossy wrote:
If you're not passing the interp to Ns_TclEval to tell it in which
interpreter to perform the TclEval ... then don't you
On 2002.05.04, Andrew Piskorski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't studied the tclvar.c much, but why would nsv locks have
anything to do with threads at all? The nsv data structures are
server-wide, after all, so I don't THINK there's anything per-thread
or per-interp about them at all.
