From: djberg96@... (Daniel Berger)
Date: 2004-05-14T12:43:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Question regarding rb_include_module

"daz" <dooby@d10.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<h_icncc3LLjsbT7dSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>...
 
> In your ext, you defined fork etc. as singleton_methods which
> are not considered by #include for mixing in; so rb_include_module
> had nothing to work on (except the VERSION constant).

I'm confused then (and I'm tired as I'm writing this).  In Ruby's
process.c, the fork function is defined as a singleton of the Process
module, yet somehow it ends up as a method of Kernel.  How?  I tried
to trace it but I'm not seeing it.

In any case, thanks for that tidbit - I never knew that for some
reason.  I should redefine most of those methods as module functions
in the same manner as Ruby's Process module.
 
> BTW:  Much credit to yourself, Park Heesob, Shanko et al. for
>       providing these utils.  I hope that some of the restructuring
>       was in preparation for submitting fork for inclusion into core.
>       It was one of those eternal things that Ruby had missing in
>       the Windows builds.

Thank you.  I don't think it will be included with core Ruby, but it
might end up in the Ruby Installer for Windows from Curt, Andy & crew,
which is fine by me, and is indeed part of the reason for the
restructuring.  Someone would have to fork Ruby to have it included in
the core code, however, and it won't be me.  Hmm...what's ActiveState
up to these days? ;)

Thanks.

Dan