On 17 September 2012 11:19, Henrik Sperre Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16.09.2012 20:42, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> On Sep 16, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >>> So, i'd like to hear your input, which one you like, and which ones >>> you prefer to have >>> >>> 1. requires creating a subclass of NBFFICallback, overriding it's >>> fnSpec method. Takes a block closure as a callback. >>> 2. first you must create a factory object by specifying a callback >>> signature, then you can instantiate new callbacks by passing a block >>> closure to that factory >>> 3. to create a callback you must specify it's signature in one of the >>> compiled methods, and specify an object which will receive a message >>> when callback will be called. >> >> for what it is worth I like the 3rd form. Now I'm not sure on: is the >> right selector. >> > +1, out of those listed #3 seems the most convenient to use. > > Being able to do something like: > Integer >> #+ > <types: #( int (int aNumber) )> > > Then specify the callback parameter as > self callback: 3 with: #+ > > would be really neat. > > As an added bonus, it also highlights the problems this approach would have > with simply annotating normal methods which utilize multiple > return/parameter types :) > not sure i understood your sentence about problems.
> Cheers, > Henry > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
