From: Christian Szegedy <szegedy@...>
Date: 2002-06-11T23:20:01+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-qt3 proposal (c++ based extensions)

Martin Man wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 10:19:49PM +0900, Christian Szegedy wrote:
> 
>>Martin Man wrote:
>>
>>>hi all,
>>>
>>>I've prepared a short proposal on how to quickly (but without loosing
>>>features) create qt3 extension module for ruby, ..., if you are interested
>>>please read on and comment. This proposal came from the fact that we have
>>>actually gcc-xml output of all qt3 headers that can be reused somehow...
>>>
>>>note that such proposal does not include any talk about signals and slots,
>>>these have to come yet, but it hopefully covers the c++ overloading 
>>>problem..
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I proposed a similar solution already. Please refer the last thread on qt.
>>I could imagine some improvement to your solution:
> 
> 
> ooops, must have missed this one, but I admit I was checking just ruby-qt
> yahoo group.
> 
> 
>>For each qt class with virtual functions an overridable and not overridable
>>version.  This would improve performance in the very commmon case, when you
>>know that you don't want to reimplement any virtual functions.
> 
> 
> well that sounds nice, but it means walking manually thru all the header files
> and marking which funtion will be overridable and which not, and this I'm
> willing to give up in favor of full automatic generation, unless someone wants
> to make this monkey work (only once, but it has to be done)...

I was unclear on that point: for each class (not for each function), I would like
to have one overridable version and one not overridable. This could automatically be
done by a Ruby script using the XML file.


>>For the overridable class, I would create a function pointer table (playing
>>the same role as the virtual function pointer table.), having the pointer to
>>the original virtual methods. If a new method on the ruby-side is defined,
>>then it could change the pointer in this new method table. This, again,
>>would improve runtime.
> 
> 
> this seems quite nice (concerning the speed issues), but how would you catch
> the method creation (in ruby) so that you can swap the function pointers ??

"method_added"

Best regards, Christian