It would work, but it would be meaningless information to anybody other than someone familiar with the internal code. You are introducing a totally new concept at the language level, which is not a good idea.
Rick On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:19 AM Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote: > Thank you Rick! > > Just one thing: the idea would be to add a uint32_t field to the > StackFrameClass such that when a stackframe gets created in > RexxActivation::createStackFrame() the RexxActivation::getIdntfr() could be > used there to supply that uint32_t value. This way no Rexx object would be > used for that information and no internal Rexx object would need to be > exposed to user code. Would that be an acceptable approach then? > > ---rony > > > On 12.02.2025 16:04, Rick McGuire wrote: > > First of all, RexxActivaion is an RexxInternalObject. Those must NEVER be > returned as an instance by Rexx code. They are not fully functional objects > that can be seen by Rexx code. There are also issues with NativeActivation > which is part of the same hierarchy with RexxActivation and also must never > be returned to Rexx code. If you really feed the need to do this, a better > choice would be to return the .Context object associated with the > activation. Buy you need to make this adjustment in every place an > StackFrame object is created, because only RexxActivation ones will have a > backing context. > > Rick > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:51 AM Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> > wrote: > >> Currently, the stackframes do not contain the information to which >> RexxActivation (“invocation”) they relate to. As a result, a caller stack >> frame cannot be consulted to learn which invocation created the called >> invocation. This is vital information in case one creates a tracelog and >> wishes to analyze exactly the flow of control post-mortem using a tracelog. >> Therefore, I would like to add that information to stackframes using the >> name “invocation” storing the value of RexxActivation::getIdntfr() and >> adjust RexxActivation::createStackFrame() and the StackFrameClass >> accordingly. Would there be something else that one needs to pay attention >> to? >> >> ---rony >> > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
