[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: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Using Smalltalk as a scripting language
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:30:56 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4

On 10/28/2009 10:25 PM, Roland Plüss wrote:
Now it might work out if I could write a backtrace directly to the
exception trace object. This means though that I have to handle the
error itself not the text that is print out. How safe is it by the way
to throw a c++ exception from a ccall? Is this going to mess GST up?


They way I use the scripts the engine always sends event messages to the
game scripts which are handled in a short time. Hence these are various
calls to gst_nvmsg_send. Would it be not better to catch the error at
this point so a c++ exception can be safely thrown? What I have in mind
is using a message which could be called from the error handling method
which populates the exception trace with informations and sets a flag
that an error happened. This way after gst_nvmsg_send returns I can
thrown an exception safely. Would this be better from the point of view
of GST than trying to thrown an exception from a ccall?

Yes. Then the #debuggerClass is better indeed. To leave the gst_nvmsg_send do "thisContext environment continue: nil".


reply via email to

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