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: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Igor Stasenko [siguctua@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:19 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky? On 21 March 2012 07:40, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu> Subject: FW: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky? Date: March 21, 2012 1:57:16 AM GMT+01:00 To: "stephane.ducasse@inria.fr" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
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: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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?"Â 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.