[#144] Another implementation of Bignum — "Dmitry Antipov" <dmitry.antipov@...>
Hello Ruby hackers,
15 messages
2002/06/06
[#151] Re: Another implementation of Bignum [tarball attached]
— "Dmitry Antipov" <dmitry.antipov@...>
2002/06/07
Hello again,
[#152] Re: Another implementation of Bignum [tarball attached]
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2002/06/07
Hi,
[#174] Improving Ruby's garbage collector for interactive apps — Matthew Bloch <mattbee@...>
re: this problem I had a few weeks back:
8 messages
2002/06/19
[#177] Re: Improving Ruby's garbage collector for interactive apps
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2002/06/20
Hi,
[#178] Re: Improving Ruby's garbage collector for interactive apps
— Matthew Bloch <mattbee@...>
2002/06/21
On Thursday 20 June 2002 18:54, you wrote:
[#186] Steps to get multiple interpreters per process... — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Can someone chart out what would need to happen to get multiple ruby
10 messages
2002/06/24
[#187] Re: Steps to get multiple interpreters per process...
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2002/06/25
Hi,
[#188] Re: Steps to get multiple interpreters per process...
— Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
2002/06/25
> |Can someone chart out what would need to happen to get multiple
[#191] Re: Steps to get multiple interpreters per process...
— Chris Ross <chris@...>
2002/06/25
Re: rb_hash_has_key() and friends non-static...
From:
Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Date:
2002-06-04 00:26:44 UTC
List:
ruby-core #120
> > As for splitting out the declarations into its own header, that was > > just something I did as it would provide a very convenient way of > > grouping and documenting the C API inline with the headers. Can > > someone please comment on either? -sc > > The name "ruby_hash.h" doesn't seem so good, for me. How about just "hash.h" ? It does seem like overkill to have "ruby_" in there. -sc -- Sean Chittenden