Re: [PATCH] to_str, to_s and StringValue

2006/3/24, Mathieu Bouchard <[e-mail]>:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Gerardo Santana Gez Garrido wrote:
>
> > But while I was at it, I found only 7 references to to_str vs. 34
> > references to to_s.
> > Only these objects implement to_str:
>
> The idea is to distinguish two kinds of conversion:
>   to_s is for default conversion from some non-String to a String
>   to_str is for conversion from some would-be-String to a String
>
> the latter is reserved for classes that are made to be used in place of
> Strings, when they need to be converted to true Strings (with nodetype
> T_STRING, so that they can be accessed as a character array in C).

Oh, I see.  Thanks a lot, it's clear now.

I should be prepared to handle an exception if I want to use
StringValue (because it expects a would-be string, or will fail),
otherwise I should use rb_check_string_type and check by myself. If
that fails, but I strongly want a string, I should fall back to
rb_obj_as_string.

Is that correct?

--
Gerardo Santana
"Between individuals, as between nations, respect for the rights of
others is peace" - Don Benito Ju疵ez
http://santanatechnotes.blogspot.com/