Re: [TCLCORE] CFV: My final round for 8.6...

[Jeff H. <je...@ac...>]

Donal K. Fellows wrote:
> Jan Nijtmans wrote:
>> Further on, I agree with Joe about the Tcl_NRAddCallback
>> signature: it is overkill to have 4 clientData arguments,
>> one would be sufficient. For use inside the core,
>> there still is an internal variant with 4 arguments, so this
>> change is easy: Just make Tcl NRAddCallback call
>> TclNRAddCallback, but with NULL as the last 3 arguments.
>> I considered giving Tcl_NRAddCallback a variable number of
>> arguments, but I think that would needlessly complicate things.
> 
> I've written a few of the actual uses of that API, and can supply a bit
> of grist to this mill. It is most certainly useful to be able to pass
> more than one machine-word to the callback, and 4 covers a vast majority
> of cases: keeping down the number of times you have to allocate memory
> on the critical path is also a good idea.
> 
> IIRC, the number 4 was chosen because that was what it was convenient to
> provide in the backing structure while retaining a fast allocator. Or
> something like that.

Then why doesn't it receive some objv/objc API?