[ruby-core:41817] Re: Best way to separate implementation specific code?

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, U.Nakamura <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In message "[ruby-core:41800] Re: Best way to separate implementation spe=
cific code?"
> =A0 =A0on Dec.25,2011 02:09:18, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 1) Should files be named original_<platform>.c ?
>> > E.g.: file_win32.c, file_unix.c, dir_win32.c
>>
>> I don't think so. win32/file.c should be allowed. we haven't implemented
>> such makefile rule, but not refuse to enhance it.
>
> +1 to kosaki-san
>
>> > 2) Should win32 files be placed in win32?
>>
>> I think so.
>
> I think so, too.
>
>
>
>> > 3) Should I move exiting POSIX version function to these _unix files?
>
> or posix/*.c ?

KOSAKI, Usa, what do you think of the following?

https://gist.github.com/1521539

Includes:

Removal of DOSISH conditional on file_load_ok, removal of static
function and define inside rb_file_load_ok for both posix and win32.
Ensure file.c uses rb_file_load_ok instead of static version.

NOTE: The code difference between posix/ and win32/ versions is
because it includes an enhancement by Hiroshi Shirosaki to speed up
rb_find_file_safe and rb_find_file_ext_safe

Thoughts?
--=20
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry