From: Jesse van den Kieboom <troplosti@...>
Date: 2004-07-14T21:56:22+09:00
Subject: Re: No Subject

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 14:41, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "J" == Jesse van den Kieboom <troplosti@orcaweb.cjb.net> writes:
> 
> J> and ruby_finalize after it executes. Problem is that ruby doesn't get
> J> cleaned. All code stays and I rather would not have this. I could try to
> J> fork the process and call ruby from within the child but I don't know
> J> what will happen with the callback functions for the two classes I
> J> created in C. Am I thinking in the wrong direction here or should there
> J> be something like ruby_clear? 
> 
>  Why you don't load the script in an anonymous module ?

Hmm, I don't even know what an anonymous module is :)

> J> The second problem is that it works now. It actually does, but I guess
> J> it isn't the best way to do things. Well thats not the problem, the
> J> problem is that whenever I call puts or print to write something to
> J> stdout my application crashes (SEGVT) on rb_func_undef_alloc (or
> J> something like that). Could this be caused by using threads?
> 
>  Do you ruby threads or system threads ?
>

System threads. I don't use threading myself but GTK+ (or pango, I'm not
sure) seems to thread.