Re: Modifying the Euphoria interpreter
CChris wrote:
> No, it's even worse than that.
> Remember that, if ex.exe tries to compile a program which mentions
> open_dll(), it errors out even though the the function won't ever be
> executed because the call is protected by a "if platform()=??? then".
> The error is generated before the platform dependent code is removed.
> But replacing the call with "machine_func(50,"kernel32.dll") won't hurt.
As well as the same things others have tried, I just tested this here:
constant k32=open_dll("kernel32")
constant k32=machine_func(50,"kernel32")
Despite beginning to mistrust myself, I was right. Both the above fail equally
on ex.exe, since you cannot put a platform() check around either.
It is true, btw, to say that you cannot use constant definitions like the above
in platform independent code. Instead you must use atom vars.
The point I am trying to make here is that you seem to be locked into using a
direct call to machine_func when it will make no significant difference - see the
definition of open_dll() in dll.e. It is the machine_func call itself which fails
on ex.exe, NOT the trivial open_dll() wrapper... you can even prove this by
putting a display inside open_dll just before the call to machine_func: it will
show fine, just before ex.exe crashes.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
