[#600] A `File' is not a `IO'????? — clemens.hintze@...

17 messages 1999/08/10
[#602] Re: A `File' is not a `IO'????? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/10

Hi,

[#679] Documentation about RD? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

78 messages 1999/08/17
[#680] Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

=begin

[#683] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#686] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#687] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, GOTO Kentaro wrote:

[#693] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#695] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/18

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#697] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#703] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#706] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#681] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#682] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#684] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@...> 1999/08/18

Hi Tosh and all,

[#685] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#689] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#694] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#700] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#702] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#704] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#719] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#720] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 20 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#721] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#722] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 21 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#723] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#737] RD with multi charset — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>

Hi, I'm Minero Aoki. This is my first mail in this mailling list.

26 messages 1999/08/22

[ruby-talk:00675] Re: Way to intercept method calls?

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 1999-08-17 16:47:55 UTC
List: ruby-talk #675
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:00672] Re: Way to intercept method calls?"
    on 99/08/17, clemens.hintze@alcatel.de <clemens.hintze@alcatel.de> writes:

|> Hmm, there's no such mechanism to capture all method calls in current
|> Ruby, and I'm afraid it will not be available in the future, because
|> it should cause performance drawback.
|
|Hmm... We could have a method, that could set an internal flag on C
|level. If that flag is set for a certain class, ruby could call
|`__send__with `midエ instead of sending direct. But only for that
|class (means instances)!
|
|Would that be better for the performance?

Yes.  I assume the cost of one additional condtional check can be
ignored.  But two things:

  * I'm not sure whether it's worthy enough.  I'm afraid not.
  * We don't have spare flagspace anymore in current implementation.

|> Instead, there's a way to override all predefined methods dynamically,
|> which is not exactly you want, since it can't handle dynamically
|> defined methods, but I guess it will do most of the job.
|
|But that would also cause performance drawbacks, wouldnエt it?

Well, at least it doesn't hurt the performance of unrelated objects.

                                                        matz.

In This Thread