Like I said before, the code always compiled just fine, it's just that my ide doesn't seem to agree with the compiler. I guess I was mostly trying to figure out whats wrong with vscode. What I ended up doing to fix the 'error' was very round about. I created a regular ISR function that calls <<code>> queue.call(&pressed); <</code>.

To further complicate the issue, what I really is to be able to do this all within a class. AKA: the class creates it's own thread and queue and interrupt. But of course, Interrupts don't like non static member functions as callbacks, and it would appear that neither do events!? So to get around that problem, my interrupt callback is static, I have a static pointer to a reference of 'this' initialized in my classes constructor, my callback uses a static cast to pass onto the static queue to call the non static function in the static thread..... At this point my class might as well be a singleton, but my real goal is to make everything not static... I think that is a completely different question but i'm venting about the absurdity. Also these problems are really hard to fix when your ide is telling you you have problems that aren't there...

Dalen,

The mbed Callback class specifically to solve these types of problems. You can easily make a callback to a member function. Here’s simplified version with serial receive:

// Talks to BLE radio over serial port
class BLE {
public:
    BLE() :
        serial_(kPinBleTx, kPinBleRx, kBleBaudRate) {
        serial_.attach(callback(this, &BLE::receiveISR));
    }

private:
    void receiveISR() {
        while (serial_.readable()) {
            serial_.putc(serial_.getc());
        }
    }

    RawSerial serial_;
};

Threads can also be owned by a class. You still need to wait and call start() in main after everything is all setup. Here’s simplified version of something I use to process new requests coming in:

class API {
public:
    // Ctor
    API() :
        thread_(osPriorityNormal, 5000) {
    }

    // API Thread Loop
    void apiThread() {
        while (true) {
            osEvent evt = api_mailbox.get(1000);

            if (evt.status == osEventMail) {
                mail_t *mail = (mail_t *)evt.value.p;
                processRequest(mail->buffer);
                api_mailbox.free(mail);
            }
        }
    }

    // Call from main when you are ready to start all threads.
    void start() {
        thread_.start(callback(this, &API::apiThread));
    }

    // Other Threads can Add string to mailbox to be Processed
    void mailPut(char* buffer) {
        mail_t *mail = api_mailbox.alloc();

        if (mail == NULL) {
            printf("API mailPut         OVERFLOW\n");
        }
        else {
            strcpy(mail->buffer, buffer);
            api_mailbox.put(mail);
        }       
    }

private:
    void processRequest(char *buffer) {
        //do something with buffer
    }

    Thread thread_;

    static const int kApiMailboxSize = 1;

    typedef struct {
        char *buffer;
    } mail_t;

    Mail<mail_t, kApiMailboxSize>api_mailbox;
};

Hope this is helpful.

Well that worked pretty well. So I've got an IDE that works now. Visual studio 2019 with VisualGDB seems to be working great! As a plus, I have actual debugging capabilities now. So, last question:

I now have in my class init function:

_interruptThread.start(callback(&_interruptQueue, &EventQueue::dispatch_forever));
_interruptPin.rise(callback(this, &RF95Driver::InterruptCallback));

And then this function:

void RF95Driver::InterruptCallback() {
    _interruptQueue.call(callback(this, &RF95Driver::handleInterrupt));
}

This all works great as expected! But.... I don't really <i>need</i> the InterruptCallback function if I can call &interruptQueue.event directly, right? I can't do something like this:

_interruptPin.rise(callback(this, &RF95Driver::_interruptQueue.event(callback(this, &RF95Driver::handleInterrupt))));

Because I'm 'taking the address of a temporary object of type 'Event<void ()>''. I'm guessing I could store a Callback object as a variable and assign it the same way you did above, but that might as well be the same thing as just calling it IntterruptCallback. Can you think of any way to do this without storing the event as a variable or function? It may just be one of those necessary evils. In any case, I appreciate your time, you've been more than helpful, especially considering I drifted away from my original problems, lol.