[#407] New feature for Ruby? — Clemens.Hintze@...

Hi all,

27 messages 1999/07/01
[#413] Re: New feature for Ruby? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/01

Hi Clemens,

[#416] Re: New feature for Ruby? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/01

On Thu, 01 Jul 1999, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#418] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/01

Hi

[#426] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/02

Hi,

[#440] Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

21 messages 1999/07/09
[#441] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/09

Hi,

[#442] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/09

On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, you wrote:

[#443] — Michael Hohn <hohn@...>

Hello,

26 messages 1999/07/09
[#444] interactive ruby, debugger — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/09

Hi Michael,

[ruby-talk:00504] Re: One question about classes written in C.

From: gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date: 1999-07-18 00:27:47 UTC
List: ruby-talk #504
In message "[ruby-talk:00502] One question about classes written in C."
    on 99/07/16, Clemens.Hintze@bln.sel.alcatel.de <Clemens.Hintze@bln.sel.alcatel.de> writes:
>   Is it true, that this kind of class implementation is only forseen
>   for builtin classes, not for classes defined via C-written extension?

I think so. If the use of magic numbers like T_POINT is allowed in
user's extensions, they seem to be going to clash sooner or later
because one could not know its value without looking the source
code. So, Data_Make_Struct() or Data_Wrap_Struct() should be used, or
essentially rb_data_object_alloc().

-- gotoken

  PS
  >Reply-To: c.hintze@gmx.net

  ??
  I ignored the Reply-To, this time ;-)

In This Thread