|
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:1.9.1.4pre) 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?
Yes.
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".
Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |