Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<9gBz8.4052$wr1.2380283950@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>   Claw uses 'access', not system.address, which is not, in fact, always
> the same thing as a C pointer.

Right. I seem to rememer a discussion here a long time ago, where the
general conclusion was that, while in theory there is no guarantee
System.Adress is implemented in any specific way, in practice
System.Address is more likely to match up with a C pointer than an
access type is.

>   I really can't understand why, given the examples of
> System.Address_To_Access_Conversions, Interfaces.C.Strings,
> Interfaces.C.Pointers, and a given a demonstrated ability to move
> comfortably among different abstractions, anyone would use such a low
> level, implementation defined thing as System.Address.  Given the
> frequency with which it's done in c.l.a. postings, I guess it seems
> reasonable to more than a few people.  #.#

I think the only place I ever use it any more is in bindings (where
you are generally at a icky low level anyway). However, I'd have to
check my code to see exactly where it is used. I know I'm rather
liberal with Addresses on unused pointer parameters, but I can't
remember how I was doing *used* pointer parameters. I'm pretty sure I
don't make much use of Interfaces.C.Pointers. Perhaps that's a bad
move?

Anyway, the possible issues with System.Address is why I mentioned it.
I'm certianly willing to learn the proper portable way to get at C
pointers, and from the looks of things, the folks who wrote Claw would
know a thing or two about portability. :-)


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html