[#1094] Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby, ruby/lib: * eval.c (ev_const_defined, ev_const_get), variable.c — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

> * eval.c (rb_mod_autoload, rb_mod_autoload_p): new method;

12 messages 2003/05/29
[#1095] Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby, ruby/lib: * eval.c (ev_const_defined, ev_const_get), variable.c — nobu.nokada@... 2003/05/29

Hi,

Re: ext/syck problems

From: "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Date: 2003-05-13 06:38:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #1019
Hello,

In message "Re: ext/syck problems"
    on May.13,2003 15:20:00, <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
| >   * ANSI function definitions/prototypes may cause a problem
| >     with some old compilers, and
| 
| I will spend time tomorrow converting these as well.

I'm noticed that some ext/digest/* modules already use ANSI function
difinitions.
So, I withdraw this proposal.


| >   * not only tool-generated files, should there be source files?
| 
| I use Yacc (gram.y -> gram.c) and re2c (token.re -> token.c, implicit.re
| -> implicit.c).  I can certainly include source files for these, but
| likely we don't want a re2c dependancy.  Should I leverage yacc since
| it's already used for Ruby's grammar?

I think all source files should be included, and tool-generated files
should be included, too.
If source files are not included, we (without you, Why :-P) must
maintain tool-generated files. It's not pleasure for us.
But if only source files are included, users will complain about
it.
This is only my opinion. Someone will have another opinion, I guess.


Regards,
-- 
U.Nakamura <usa@osb.att.ne.jp>



In This Thread