On 24/3/07 18:24, "Norman Palardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If REAL is to eventually provide a means to create DLL's / plugins > for other tools (like Photoshop) Oh happy day.. > they'll need to adhere to standard > calling conventions for the various architectures they compile for. > That includes adhering to the mechanisms already in place for > returning values from called functions. Of course C++ does this with a simple keyword - no big shakes, I see no reason why a checkbox or menu option couldn't be included in a method definition to flag a function as conforming with certain calling conventions ( C mostly ). It seems to me that when they DO implement DLLs they will need to provide some means for us to specify which functions are to be "exposed" in the final DLL interface, so something like this will have to occur. > I'd bet this includes returning one result in a register (which > mostly means returning one result) > > Having to make it so a function can "know" what language called it so > it can adhere to certain calling conventions could be problematic > (ie/ IF called by RB then I can return values in one way and if > called by a C function then call it another way) Like I said above, only a limited set of functions normally needs to be exposed as the final DLL interface, so only these need to be restricted in how they return values. Regards, Dan _______________________________________________________ www.13flatFIVE.com The C++ <> REALbasic code migration specialists _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
