Re: AddressOf equivalent?

[Mars Saxman <mars at realsoftware dot com>]

On Jun 26, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Alfred Van Hoek wrote:

> Yes, I know and thanks for the reminder. However, AddressOf does  
> not require knowledge of the signature at all and that 's just a  
> convenience under particular circumstances. While usage of  
> AddressOf failed initially (because I used quotes) the fallback was  
> dynamic access
Huh? What do you mean by this? If you are using RB code then  
AddressOf is your only option, and if you are using a plugin then the  
dynamic access API is your only option. How can one be a fallback for  
the other? I am worried that you have written a plugin which expects  
its RB client code to pass in a function pointer. This would  
definitely not be an intended use for AddressOf.
Mars Saxman
REAL Software

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>