On 17 September 2012 11:19, Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no> wrote:
On 16.09.2012 20:42, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
So, i'd like to hear your input, which one you like, and which ones you prefer to have
1. requires creating a subclass of NBFFICallback, overriding it's fnSpec method. Takes a block closure as a callback. 2. first you must create a factory object by specifying a callback signature, then you can instantiate new callbacks by passing a block closure to that factory 3. to create a callback you must specify it's signature in one of the compiled methods, and specify an object which will receive a message when callback will be called.
for what it is worth I like the 3rd form. Now I'm not sure on: is the right selector.
+1, out of those listed #3 seems the most convenient to use.
Being able to do something like: Integer >> #+ <types: #( int (int aNumber) )>
Then specify the callback parameter as self callback: 3 with: #+
would be really neat.
As an added bonus, it also highlights the problems this approach would have with simply annotating normal methods which utilize multiple return/parameter types :)
not sure i understood your sentence about problems.
Cheers, Henry
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.