[#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: Steps to get multiple interpreters per process...
From:
ts <decoux@...>
Date:
2002-06-25 09:05:50 UTC
List:
ruby-core #194
>>>>> "C" == Chris Ross <chris@darkrock.co.uk> writes: C> I store all things that are related to a execution instance in a C> FeriteScript* and then pass that to all functions. They simply all C> take a FeriteScript* as the first argument. OK, this mean modify all extensions written in C, right ? Now if I don't want a version of ruby with multiple interpreter, why give an extra argument for each functions. perl solve this with #define at compile time, and the same extension can be compiled with or without multi interpreter without modifications. Guy Decoux