From: Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@...>
Date: 2003-04-10T20:23:59+09:00
Subject: Re: tutorial on embedding ruby (review)

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:03 +0000, Steve Hart wrote:
> 
> I'm in the middle of embedding ruby into a c++ project and read the
> tutorial with interest. It's great to see something out there that
> addresses this issue. 

You are lucky that you don't have to figure this out all over again :-) 
You are doing very well.. It has taken me too long time to get into
things, just to find out that they were all wrong (some of them).


> 1) A more detailed explanation of THE GC interaction would be good. I'
[snip gc issues/questions]

Many good questions.. 

 
> 2) An example explaining finializers would be nice - still not sure if
> I need them. Since I'm probably what Matz would describe as a 'normal'
> user perhaps I should stear clear!.

Maybe I should make it more clear, that I will not talk about 
finalizers. And that you instead should use "close" + blocks.
 

> 3) rb_require over rb_load_protect - I started off using rb_require
> but then found that if rb_require fails with a script error and I then
> corrected the script re re-rb_requiring ignored the changes - I assume
> the script is cached. Switching to rb_load_protect reloads the script
> each time - but is this correct? 

Yes, thats correct.


> What does the second argument to rb_load_protect do?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=200104011037.f31AbrS21498%40orsay1.moulon.inra.fr&rnum=12&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drb_load_protect%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=200302281436.h1SEaZT27859%40moulon.inra.fr

The reason why I am using rb_require is that I don't
needs to re-load scripts.. I just load them during
initialization, once and for all.

This is of cause something which must be explained in the text :-)

 
> 3) More detail for the swig version - especially for the case when a
> ruby class inherits a swigged up c class and you need to pass a
> swigged up c class instance throug to it and then back out again
[snip good example]

Yes. SWIG puts your classes under a "%module"-namespace. This makes
it a bit ackward... I wonder if its possible to avoid this namespace ?
Well something clearly must be written about this issue.
 

> 4) Also under speed issues - should'nt void mystruct_alloc(VALUE
> klass) return VALUE?

Oops.. yes.


Thanks for your efforts.. this is just what I need.
Simon Strandgaard