On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:29PM +0300, Shmuel Fomberg wrote: > >>>static SV *callback_ref = (SV*)NULL; > >>Reality check: you do know that "static" means here, right? > >I think so: I have exactly one instance of this variable. Do you see > >any problems with this? > > Um, you are thinking C++.
No, I'm thinking pure C here. I don't line C++ very much. (please feel free to check http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ for some reasons why I don't like C++) > declaring static variable outside object or > function says something about it's scope. (you still get one instance of > this, even without the static) Since we were talking about threads, I assumed that your question was about having one instance (shared by all threads) against having one instance per thread. I need to pass the callback reference from the main thread to the callback thread, so having a shared variable for this is exactly what I want. The scope should surely be limited to my file, because I don't want to export objects without a reason. I still don't see any problem with this. > >>>int call_perl (int cnt, ...) > >>>{ > >>> dTHX; > >>> PERL_SET_CONTEXT(my_perl); > >>I hate the "my_perl" parameter. Who defined it? what is it set to? > >AFAIK, this is created by dTHX. > > Correct. but from where does the dTHX take it? from the connection > between the thread and one perl interpreter. who makes the connection? > PERL_SET_CONTEXT. but the PERL_SET_CONTEXT is inited with my_perl... see > the loop here? I agree that the dTHXa() method you mentioned is the cleaner method. BTW: I can't find any reference of this macro in the documentation. Are you sure this is officially part of the API?
