Defining a common plugin machinery

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> writes:

> Is it really that far fetched to have the plugin not directly access
> anything from the executable's symbol table but instead be passed a
> structure that contains a defined set of interfaces and callbacks?

Yes, that is pretty far fetched.  Simply writing the list of callbacks
would be very painful.  Keeping that list of callbacks working for
more than one release would be unbearable pain.

Perhaps someday, with much more experience of plugins, this will be
possible, but I don't see any real possibility of starting out that
way.

Ian