Bill Currie wrote:
Actually, I meant there's no problem changing the name. That's the advantage of a function call: the RTS implementation gets hidden properly.
It might be an advantage, but since InOutRes is documented in BP, it should be the same in GPC. Therefore, I see no problem making inline code to check InOutRes.
On 4 Nov 97 at 2:40, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Bill Currie wrote:
Actually, I meant there's no problem changing the name. That's the advantage of a function call: the RTS implementation gets hidden properly.
It might be an advantage, but since InOutRes is documented in BP, it should be the same in GPC. Therefore, I see no problem making inline code to check InOutRes.
What I meant was: because I implemented the check as a function call, changing the name to InOutRes from whatever I called it won't cause problems.
Because I have the check call working, we should concentrate on getting the rts to work before worrying about HOW InOutRes is checked. That is, once I get the patches out :)-
Bill -- Leave others their otherness.
-
Bill Currie -
Frank Heckenbach