From: Matju <matju@...>
Date: 2004-11-12T10:39:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Converting nil to NULL


On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
> At Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:59:05 +0900,
> Matju wrote in [ruby-core:03713]:
> > After all, Ruby has _eight_ different kinds of conditional expressions
> > (the ?: syntax, the if/end syntax, and the
> unless/end

Thank you. So there are _nine_ of them. The rest of my message stays
the same.

> > In my biggest C++ program I go as far as... well... just imagine what it
> > would like if rb_scan_args had a full, user-extensible type conversion
> > system. THEN you can cut down a _lot_ on code, as you wouldn't even have
> > to call StringValuePtr directly, neither your own NULL-savvy wrapper.
> > Preserves the brain for the more challenging aspects of programming.
> It will get slower.

I'm intrigued. How do you justify that statement? I mean show that there
exists no way of doing that that does not also slow down the extension in
any way.

My assumption is that there are ways to make it not slower. I think it's a
good assumption because, in particular, I have implemented such a type
converter, it works, and it uses ways to make it not slower. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montr�al QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju