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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: OO "void *user_data" in thick library bindings
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:56:53 +0300
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <lqrdsi$amp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rFX7cZOSaeuGGZI2vwQTaQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: KNode/4.12.4
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21191
Date: 2014-07-24T19:56:53+03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Is it a good idea in thick bindings for a C library to replace every handler 
with user data:

void (*raptor_statement_handler) (void *user_data, *statement);

with a tagged record whose (or its descendant) access is ALWAYS passed as 
user_data? (I mean in my bindings NEVER pass anything other than a 
descendant of my tagged record as user_data. Huh?)

This is object oriented, but maybe a little restrictive. Well, if it would 
be object oriented from the beginnings, it would probably be the way to 
implement it. So, it is probably not too restrictive.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org