Re: C callback
[email protected] (Joshua N Pritikin)
| Newsgroups | perl.loop |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:28:29PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Joshua N Pritikin <[email protected]> writes: > >OK. Does anyone oppose changing the C callback from: > > > >(* (void(*)(void*,pe_event*)) ev->callback)(ev->ext_data, ev); > > > >To: > > > >(* (void(*)(pe_event*,void*)) ev->callback)(ev, ev->ext_data); > > > >? > > I prefer the latter - it makes it more method-call-like. i'll count that as a vote *for* the binary incompatible change. For what it's worth, i decided to change the prototype to: (* (void(*)(pe_event*)) ev->callback)(ev); After all, ext_data is already available via ev->ext_data, if needed, and if the callback doesn't need ext_data then there is a *slight* performance gain. ;-) -- May the best description of competition prevail. (via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)