Re: Dispatching callback handed over to C

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 4 Kwi, 21:16, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> > Interestingly, this is also the intent of void*.
>
> But that's impossible. In general, data memory and code memory are different
> things and require different access.

But we are talking about using void* as a data pointer here (a class-
wide object).

> If all you want to do is store them, just stick them in the record as
> "access-to-class-wide" and don't even worry about having a C counterpart.
> You need some c-compatible type in the C-side, but it is just a
> "bucket-of-bits".

I use void* as bit bucket with the indication that what is inside is,
well, a pointer.
Ironically, contrary to your insistence of using type information
correctly, I find my use of void* as a bit bucket for a pointer value
somewhat more typed (at least in the sense of being self-documenting)
than your DWORD, which is a bit bucket completely devoid of any self
description and even exposing wrong set of operations (arithmetic? bit
shifting? silent integer conversion? is it a set of flags or
something?).

Sorry, you are not convincing. I'll stick to void* when pointers are
involved.

> System.Address is the wrong type to use for a "bucket-of-bits".

It is a proper type to use for a "bucket-of-pointer-bits" in the sense
that I have no doubts about the intent when I see it later in code.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com