1. Re: OpenGl again.
Robert Craig wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "call_dll",
Sorry, where I said call_dll() I meant call_back().
> however, it's my impression that you will crash if
> you declare the wrong number of arguments to a C routine
> that you call from Euphoria, but getting the void or non-void
> part of its declaration wrong will not matter.
> In the worst case you will just get a garbage value returned,
> or you will ignore a legitimate value that is returned.
Actually I'm not talking about the arguments used in calling
a C function, but the return value of the call-back written
in Euphoria. The sample C Program mr. Martin was coding by used
call-backs with void returns. Because of call_back()'s
requirements that the routine_id() pointed to be a function
and return a 32-bit value, he had to return an arbitrary value
(zero) in his versions of the the call_back functions. If the
C function that called the call-back function wasn't expecting
a return value, could that be the problem?
Am I making more sense now?
Thanks,
Christopher D. Hickman
