From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2002-05-12T01:09:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby extensions - pushing classes into other modules

>>>>> "D" == Daniel Berger <djberg96@attbi.com> writes:

D> I want to create a base class called "Sys" that would simply serve as a 
                           ^^^^^
                           module, no ?

D> common namespace for future modules.  I don't want to have to do a 

D> I would like to be able to stick each class in its own .c file.  This 

 Well, in your sys.c you write something like this (*warning* not tested)

   VALUE sys_mSys;

   void Init_sys()
   {
      sys_mSys = rb_define_module("Sys");
      Init_uname();
      Init_hostname();
      /* ... */
   }

 In uname.c

   extern VALUE sys_mSys;

   void Init_uname()
   {
      VALUE sys_cUname;
      sys_cUname = rb_define_class_under(sys_mSys, "Uname", rb_cObject);
      /* ... */
   }

 This suppose that sys_mSys is a global variable.

D> would not only help reduce serious bloat in one file, it would allow 
D> others to easily add their own extensions under the 'Sys' namespace.

 Now if I want to extend the Sys namespace with my private class Sys::Own,
 I'll write in the file own.c

   void Init_own()
   {
      VALUE sys_mSys, own_cOwn;
      rb_require("sys");
      sys_mSys = rb_const_get(rb_cObject, rb_intern("Sys"));
      own_cOwn = rb_define_class_under(sys_mSys, "Own", rb_cObject);
      /* ... */
   }




Guy Decoux