Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!boulder!grunwald
From: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Defining Callbacks from resource files
Message-ID: <15040@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 89 19:26:37 GMT
References: <38@guug.UUCP> <8912191502.AA22891@LYRE.MIT.EDU>
	<129425@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 11
In-reply-to: brianw@gazooch.Sun.COM's message of 19 Dec 89 18:45:23 GMT

>>>>> On 19 Dec 89 18:45:23 GMT, brianw@gazooch.Sun.COM (Brian Warkentine) said:

Brian> 	You're contradicting yourself.  Since one can already bind action proc 
Brian> 	names to "real functions", why would it be operating system dependent 
Brian> 	to bind callback names to "real functions?"
---

Action procs are bound at compile time; a string -> proc converter
would need to load the symbol table to determine the function address.
This is O/S dependent. Also, if the symbol table has been striped, it
won't work.