[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: leaf environments vs eval environments? |
Date: |
22 Jun 2001 17:54:04 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Copyleft) |
Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
> Lars> If this doesn't work, what is the recommended method for
> Lars> doing what I'm trying to do? A static/global this-binding
> Lars> isn't an option - it must be local to the evaluation.
>
> ... but I'm afraid I don't know how you should do this. Hopefully
> someone else will have the answer later.
the thing to do is to stop fiddling with experimental and potentially
expensive features (like environments), and instead to make "this" a
fluid.
so:
so your evaluation would proceed like this:
scm_c_with_fluid (this_fluid, AS_SMOB (this), call_string_evaluating_method,
this);
and `call_string_evaluating_method' is defined thusly:
extern "C" void
call_string_evaluating_method (StringEvaluatingClass *obj)
{
obj->do_string_evaluation ();
}
see also `scm_c_with_fluids' if you want to bind several things this way.
assuming I understood what you wanted,
--mike
--
May all your PUSHes be POPped.
- leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?,
Michael Livshin <=
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/22
- Re: leaf environments vs eval environments?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/25