Re: Call back procedures

I've written massive amounts of code using call-backs. They are a good way to write tools intended for programmers, allowing those programmers to insert their own code at key points in the process. Making things much more flexible (usually at the cost of complexity)

The only real gotcha that I know of with callbacks themselves is that you end up defining the prototype for the procedure twice, and there's no system-provided tool that verifies that the prototypes match. Thus, it's relatively easy to have parameter mismatches (much like the old CALL/PARM/PLIST opcodes -- you eschew many of the advantages of prototypes)

Other than that... it's hard to find a "gotcha". I mean, callbacks are plumbing. They are a way to call a routine. Sometimes they are the right tool for the job, and sometimes they are not. But without any context, it's hard to list "gotchas" or "should-a/could-a".

So... what do you plan to do with your callback?


Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I think we may have encountered a situation in our shop where call
back procedures would be helpful. I recently read an article by Joe
Pluta describing the concept and it makes sense to me. My question
is does anyone have real world experience with call back procedures
that would be willing to share any gotcha's or I wish I had done this
experiences?

I would like to find out about them now while we are still designing rather than later.