Re: calling convention stdcalll and cdecl call
* Alex Blekhman:
You'd find decimal number system problematic if you came from an
octal culture, being used to that.
According to my understanding of what a calling convention
consists of, your example is beyond the limits of __stdcall
capabilities because it requires new convention about the meaning
of parameters.
May be. But the point is that stdcall could easily have used this technique.
Hence it's incorrect to say that stdcall cannot or could not support variadic
number of arguments (as Igor did) -- a single counter-example is enough to
establish that, and such counter-example has been provided.
Now whether to call what-stdcall-could-have-been stdcall or not, that's a
separate issue, one of practicality; I think that for a language such as C++,
where the function has variadic number of arguments if and only if it has "..."
formal argument, there's no need for a separate name: the "..." is enough.
But for a language like C -- unless it's become somewhat more strictly typed
in recent years -- a separate name might be a good idea.
So it's relative, as most things are. ;-)
I just wish the other two participants in this thread would stop posting inane,
idiotic, meaningless articles, engaging my calling-names circuits all the time
(or perhaps that's why they do it, if so then it's not very nice of them).
Cheers,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?