From: "Berger, Daniel" <djberge@...>
Date: 2002-08-08T23:10:09+09:00
Subject: RE: struct needs to be a constant?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 8:08 AM
> To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
> Cc: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: struct needs to be a constant?
> 
> 
> >>>>> "B" == Berger, Daniel <djberge@qwest.com> writes:
> 
> >> rb_struct_define("Proto::ProtoStruct","name","aliases","number",0);
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                           ^^
>                           ^^
> 
>  This is this that 1.7 don't like, and I understand it.

I'm not sure what mean here (I'm having difficulty translating).  Are you
saying that this is expected behavior and that you agree with it?

> 
> >> > void Init_proto()
>                ^^^^^
>                ^^^^^
> 
>  Now nobody can write an extension with the name `proto', even if your
>  extension is called via 'require "net/proto"' :-(

Not true, at least not if I understand you correctly.  With my own version
of Net::Proto already installed, I wrote this and installed it:

#include "ruby.h"
#include <stdio.h>

void Init_proto()
{
   VALUE t_mTest, cTest;
   t_mTest = rb_define_module("Test");
   cTest = rb_define_class_under(t_mTest,"Proto",rb_cObject);

   printf("Yes, this extension works, even though it's called 'Proto'\n");
}

In the extconf.rb I did this:

require "mkmf"
create_makefile('test/proto')

Then I did:

require "net/proto"
require "test/proto"

It seemed to work fine.  Have I missed something?

Regards,

Dan