On 25 Feb 2003 at 18:19, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[...]
What about: procedure Foo; external cname 'foo'; in case of resistance ;-)
I think if there's resistance, it will be against any change. I don't think there's a particular problem with `external name' (and it's BP compatible, unlike `external cname' or any other new creation would be).
I agree that we should, if possible, not go off on a frolic of our own and invent something new. Therefore, I suggest that we keep as much BP compatibility as we can. So, why not go for:
procedure Foo; external name 'foo'; { for imports } Procedure Bar; name 'bar'; { for exports }
If "name" is not supplied, then GPC could supply sensible defaults: Procedure Foo; external; { GPC supplies "name 'Foo'" automatically) Procedure Bar; { GPC supplies "name 'Bar'" automatically)
We also need to keep the attributes. So for example, I will need to be able to do something like this: procedure Foo; external name 'foo'; attribute(stdcall); procedure Bar; name 'bar'; attribute(stdcall);
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/