Subject: [FreeVMS] Re: Subroutine interface definitions
From: Edward Brocklesby (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2003 - 03:57:59 CET
On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:25, Roar ThronĆ¦s wrote:
> > 2. Having an alternate interface that allows passing a nul-terminated string,
> > maybe cli_present which allows passing "TEST" (nul-terminated string)
> > instead of requiring a descriptor be created and passed. Other than that,
> > it would return the same return values.
> > Is there any particular feeling about #2? Or is there a general feeling that
> > FreeVMS support strictly what OpenVMS did without adding anything?
> I am not sure whether we should support null-termination.
> People have been burnt by null-termination more than enough.
I would rather see the C compiler generating automatically the
descriptor, as it works for other languages. In PL/I for example I can
sts$value = cli$present('log');
With some of the C99 literal extensions, it *may* not even be required
to modify the compiler to do this, although the PL/I compiler does add
another data type to allow functions accepting descriptors to be
This would be more general than special casing every function, and would
also mean that developers could write code which accepted descriptors,
and not have to provide additional entry points for C coders.
It'd also be more in the spirit of similar VMS extensions, such as
taking the address of a numeric literal; f(&10), which makes certain
system service calls a /lot/ easier..
-- Liste de diffusion FreeVMS Pour se désinscrire : mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Dec 28 2003 - 04:18:25 CET