I'm back...
--- In [email protected], "entropyreduction" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, this is easy, but I would not use call backs, since it really > > does work internally just as you have above, ie > > v[i]=s generates the text > > vec.set(v,i,s) > > which PowerPro then evaluates as a plugin call on the service set of > > the plugin vec. > > Slight problem: the relevant services are called something else > (get_array_element, set_array_element). So either I provide > undocumented dll exports called set/get, or names of get/set > services are arguments to: > > > So I will probably extend the current registration of local variable > > free processes to also allow you to register that your plugin has > > get and set methods it wants called when [] used. (I think having > > the first BOOL argument set to 2 to indicate this provides backwards > > compatibility). > > Sounds okay. > > > You'll also need to supply the plugin name as text > > in a new argument. If you have different signatures in the same > > plugin, you'll need to disentangle that in a single set method call > > by looking at the signatures. > > Sounds okay. > > > However, this means that PowerPro now needs to know about the local > > copy signature. I know that I use small and capital letters for > > this, but it is probably easier if I specify that the first byte of > > the non-localcopy signature must be 0x20 ored with the first byte of > > the localcopy, which preserves the upper case/lowercase situation. > > Fine. > > > It might be more elegant to use a separate callback service with > > both localcopy and normal signatures specified and also the name of > > the plugin. Possibly I will do it this way. Any preference? > > Off top of my head (I'm rushing off to a ski holiday in an hour) I'd > go for the second arrangement. > > > Objects are trickier; I think you'd want to say things like > > o1.o2.o3 = expr > > or > > o1[i1].o2 =expr > > or any combination of []s amd .s I am not sure how to specify this > > generally as a series of (nested?) calls to services. Probably you > > need a separate call for o1.o2/ So that get-ter for > > o1[i1].o2 becomes something like > > com.getobj(com.get(o1, i1), o2) > > > I don't think I want to try this unless there is a lot of demend. > > I wasn't thinking as far as object syntax. That would be lovely for > users of com plugin, but dunno how many of them there are. > > Let's stick to brackets for now? > > Back in a week. > Attention: PowerPro's Web site has moved: http://www.ppro.org Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/power-pro/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
