From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.netfront.net!not-for-mail
From: Tarek Ghaleb <invalid@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: System.Address to Access to function/procedure conversion
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net/
Message-ID: <kt3q27$18qs$1@adenine.netfront.net>
References: <kt3d9j$vmp$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <15i0rfwzpj7cy$.ob5l4ffr5iqa$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.247.181.164
X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 1375038344 41820 77.247.181.164 (28 Jul 2013
 19:05:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
X-Original-Bytes: 2982
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182740
Date: 2013-07-28T19:05:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2013-07-28, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> If you pass anything to C you should better keep it under C convention,
> even if you are certain that C does not touch it. You should pass an
> access-to-procedure/function to C and get it back. The access type will
> have pragma Convention (C, ... set. You don't need address here. E.g.

I agree completely. Using C convention is the way to do it. But is it
*possible* to call a function using its address? (even if not a such a
great idea)

But let me explain how this question came about:

I've been experimenting with writing a thick binding for FLTK for a
couple of days now, just exploring the idea (which deserves a thread
by itself, since it would be interesting to get some
feedback). Anyway, one thing I started working on was callbacks, If I
use C convention the user of the binding will also have to declare his
procedure using C convention. For example (simplified)

  procedure Cb_Button;
  pragma Convention (C, Cb_Button);  -- This is required I guess

and then later register the callback with

  Btn.Callback(Cb_Button'Access);

But if I remove 

  pragma Conversion (C, Cb_Button);

I get 

  ...: subprogram "Cb_Button" has wrong convention
  ...: does not match convention of access type

But I don't want the user to worry about using pragma Convention for
every defined callback procedure or think in terms of interfacing with
C (or in FLTK's case C++). Ideally, Callback() is not the actual
imported callback() but it takes Ada friendly parameters and does any
type conversions needed then calls the imported callback() function. I
thought maybe it works like above but without the convention line and
then Callback() would send the Address instead of the Access to the
actual callback(). But maybe there is a better way to do it.

There are other issues of course, for example: callbacks do take
parameters and some are void* but that would complicate my question
for the time being.

Tarek.

-- 
For fools rush in where angels fear to tread. -- Alexander Pope

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---