Sig,
Great news! I'm fixing some nomenclature, after which it will be time to release the dogs on callbacks. It would be great to get me to a point of understanding them and being able to put (curve fit) function definitions back into the image.
Thanks!
Bill
________________________________________
From:
[hidden email] [
[hidden email]] on behalf of Igor Stasenko [
[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:19 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky?
On 21 March 2012 07:40, Stéphane Ducasse <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: FW: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky?
> Date: March 21, 2012 1:57:16 AM GMT+01:00
> To: "
[hidden email]" <
[hidden email]>
>
> Stef,
>
> I am currently unable to post to the list (Outlook is being a pain) - could
> you forward this for me? I'm curious if I'm living dangerously or simply
> basking in Smalltalk's wonderful features.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Schwab,Wilhelm K
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:55 PM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky?
>
> To see whether one can expect to set breakpoints in callback blocks, I gave
> it shot in #exampleCqsort:
>
> cb := Callback
> signature: 'int (*)(const void *, const void *)'
> block: [ :arg1 :arg2 |
> self halt.
> ((arg1 doubleAt: 1) - (arg2 doubleAt: 1)) sign
> ].
>
> I then ran the example. To my pleasant surprise/amazement, a walkback
> appeared and the debugger was functional; I was able to evaluate the
> accessors and get numbers. Is this dangerous in some way, or does it "just
> work?" It would be hugely helpful if it is safe.
>
> Bill
>
Should be fine.
Unless you abandon the process :) But there should be a measures
preventing you from doing that.
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.
Locked
