From: "Gonzalo Garramuño" <ggarra@...>
Date: 2007-12-30T04:46:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Layout of includes in ruby 1.9

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> 
>> I'm seeing that my Makefiles will need some severe modification with 
>> these changes, particularly to make them 1.8 and 1.9 compatible.
> 
> Makefiles for what?  mkmf.rb should deal with them.
> 

Makefiles for complex real projects.  mkmf.rb is just too primitive as a 
Makefile system.  Even if I was depending on mkmf.rb I would still have 
to modify the extconf.rb script to now add a bunch of try-compile tests 
now (yuck).

> 
> Check if a feature is available with have_* methods.  If you
> find the difficult or impossible case (maybe at cross-
> compiling), let us know them.  We shall add macros to tell
> them, e.g., HAVE_IO_T in ruby/io.h.
> 

As I said, I find that impossible to do with swig.  swig can pass -DXXX 
defines, but it cannot test ruby functionality just by itself, as it is 
not a ruby program nor a make system.

That means it becomes impossible to build a swig library that supports, 
say, the STL without forcing the user to write some extconf.rb with a 
bunch of try-compile tests (or have_* tests at least) for it.  And then 
that extconf.rb would need to call swig and only then create a makefile.

SWIG should not impose a pre makefile system on the user (nor ruby, if 
you ask me).

> Do not use version.h, it is now private for core.
> 

But I want to!  It made things so much easier than what you guys are now 
proposing.  Plus it made sure a more or less stable api would remain in 
place.


-- 
Gonzalo Garramu�o
ggarra@advancedsl.com.ar

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
GeForce7300GT
Xubuntu Gutsy