[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU](no subject)
From: |
Gopal V |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU](no subject) |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:58:33 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
If memory serves me right, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> I'll poke around in the ECMA spec and try to figure out what the rule is so
> that "callvirt" can be fixed too. There is a rule that "instance" should be
> added automatically to method definition signatures, but this is a method
> reference instead. More care is needed for references.
Hmm... I thought we could use "callvirt" only on instance methods ? ...
(so if I get I_METHOD as callvirt, it should be ok to force the method def
to instance callconv ?).
> not to confuse the poor boy Gopal. :-)
Sorry ... I should really stop rambling :)
Gopal
--
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success
- Re: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/01/13
- AW: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Patrick Pletscher, 2003/01/13
- Re: AW: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/01/13
- Re: AW: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Gopal V, 2003/01/15
- Re: AW: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Gopal V, 2003/01/18
- Re: AW: [DotGNU] Oberon.net compat, Gopal V, 2003/01/14
Re: [DotGNU](no subject), Rhys Weatherley, 2003/01/12
- Re: [DotGNU](no subject),
Gopal V <=