From: Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@...>
Date: 2003-04-08T02:49:23+09:00
Subject: Re: [embedding] keeping track of non-exported global variables

On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 23:19:15 +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>>> "S" == Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com> writes:
> S> On the section of registering/unregistering global objects,
> S> what should I write:  Either that people should use an array 
> S> because this is what pickaxe says. Or that they should use a 
> S> hash because this is what [mod_ruby, vim, ruby++] uses.
> 
>  Just say that they can use an Hash or an Array  : after if someone think
>  that it's easier (or faster) to manage an Hash (or an Array) he can do
>  what he want.
> 
> S> Why does mod_ruby use a hash?  why not array?
> 
>  Good question :-)
> 
>  Probably only the author of mod_ruby know the response :-)

I tried mailing Shugo Maeda, but I haven't got any replys.. hmmm maybe I
should another of his mailing adresses?

Arrays works fine for me, but im still wondering why
both mod_ruby, vim, ruby++ uses hashes ???
It seems odd.



Objects::Objects() {
	objects = rb_ary_new();
	rb_global_variable(&objects);
}
Objects::~Objects() {
	/* flush array in order to kill em
	I do not think this is necessary at all.
	I am assuming that calling ruby_finalize()
	would effectivly kill all!
	todo: is flushing necessary? */
}
void Objects::Register(VALUE object) {
	cout << "objects += " << hex << object << endl;
	rb_ary_push(objects, object);
}
void Objects::Unregister(VALUE object) {
	cout << "objects -= " << hex << object << endl;
	rb_ary_delete(objects, object);
}