[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] Using Smalltalk as a scripting language

From: Roland Plüss
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Using Smalltalk as a scripting language
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:20:14 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090926)

>>>> If not what is the preferred way to handle
>>>> errors? hijacking #doesNotUnderstand in the Object class ( including
>>>> #halt and company )?
>>> Hijacking SystemExceptions.UnhandledException>>#defaultAction sounds
>>> better.
>>> Even better would be to define #debuggerClass in the superclasses that
>>> your scripts are supposed to subclass.  The #debuggerClass will be
>>> sent the class method #open:.
>> What kind of class is #debuggerClass supposed to return? Of course I
>> could simply make a class with only #open but I'd like to use the proper
>> superclass for this situation to avoid breaking potential future gst
>> versions.
> Yes, any class with #open: will do.
What exactly does #open do? Assuming I use a c function as #open in the
base class do I then get this function called whenever there is a
run-time problem?
> This is wrong indeed, you found a bug in GNU Smalltalk. :-(
> I suggest that you base your application on the master branch of the
> GNU Smalltalk git repository, where I have fixed the bug.  The next
> release will be out soon, so it is stable and has new features, some
> of them useful for bindings.  If you prefer, I can backport to 3.0 or
> 3.1 though.
Not a problem. Fixed it right now by using
   OOP pObjNil = gst_eval_expr( "nil" )

This should be the same as the interpreter nil. Works with that so far.

Yours sincerely
Plüss Roland

Leader and Head Programmer
- Game: Epsylon ( , )
- Game Engine: Drag(en)gine ( , )
- Normal Map Generator: DENormGen ( )

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]