From: Aaron Patterson Date: 2011-11-23T13:34:48+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:41237] Re: Availability of ruby/intern.h --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 06:28:09AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Are functions accessible via ruby/intern.h considered to be "public" > > API? =A0In other words: are C extensions allowed to use the functions in > > there without fear of the header file being removed? > > > > I'm using some of these functions, but I want to avoid a situation like > > we had with node.h. =A0Thanks! >=20 > This topic is one of faq. summy of past discussion are >=20 > - Ruby team never announced it's public APIs. and It was intended > "Intern"al functions. > - However, many many gems depend on intern.h. so we can't break it > for compatiblity. > - Some critical dangerous functions are gradually moving from > intern.h to internal.h. > but it's not completed. > - Further, intern.h might become just only have one line #include > and almost functions move to ruby.h or internal.h in the > future. but it's still a status of just idea. >=20 > In short, It depend on your using functions. but almost functions are > ok at least 2.0. (2.0 has compatibility with 1.9). we have to accept > this historical accident. ;-) Can we make rb_path2class officially public? :-D --=20 Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOzHfWAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GOHUIAIsNvTalLgVuV2TEKK7LXcEb jOwAxieS7uhPz9VkeEq77D2q+fmy0ri1x1p6jXw7ZJ+IdHdwLZNON9nmVjkw/O5o 8QnCwE1+7L0+A2mSjwg7fo3N8sJHF5tWnozMGFbsaKyRpbmWtAhYmyW5wfedatds dCaJ5sx1O+u6m1Y71A81TiOAIVPhcZk5FVcHtLpRV26BcG2ZM9EQZlq/8X/rGwjg QzismEWm+L5GiW9Pj/oGVsyTLRfJFpBED6CJGuaJMhkDxvFIi+EdXn06siHwJW+r HBVSJwrsEHxI8pC1EX40y5c9RRti2ydKBa/pxkHrEGt0eV4cKwxQuIeMsLKVpaw= =beKj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--