Hi,
Suppose I want to make a “Math::Const” submodule. What should I call the
Init_* function so that the require is something sensible. Is this even
possible?
Could the ‘require’ be something like:
require ‘math::const’
But you can’t make a C function called Init_math::const
What is the best way to deal with the issue of submodules and require’s?
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi,
Suppose I want to make a “Math::Const” submodule. What should I call the
Init_* function so that the require is something sensible. Is this even
possible?Could the ‘require’ be something like:
require ‘math::const’
You mean include, right?
But you can’t make a C function called Init_math::const
What is the best way to deal with the issue of submodules and require’s?
Excerpt from README.ETC:
To define nested classes or modules, use the functions below:
VALUE rb_define_class_under(VALUE outer, const char *name, VALUE super)
VALUE rb_define_module_under(VALUE outer, const char *name)
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Excerpt from README.ETC:
oops… README.EXT
No, I really do mean require.
I know that the include would be:
include Math::Const
But what I’m asking about is if there is any standard for the “require”
line, when you are requiring a submodule. I think that it would be
confusing to have:
require ‘const’
include Math::Const
And I’m trying to figure out a ‘require’ line that can convey the idea of
a submodule. One idea is:
require ‘mathConst’
include Math::Const
So the C function would be called Init_mathConst().
Another idea is to let the C function be called Init_const, and make a
“math::const.rb” file that wraps around it, since “:” is a perfectly
good file-name character. Something like this:
============ math::const.rb =========
require ‘const’
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 01:07:02PM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
require ‘math::const’
You mean include, right?
=======================================
Now you can do:
require ‘math::const’
include Math::Const
I am wondering what people usually make the “require” line when you are
requiring a submodule.
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Daniel Carrera wrote:
require ‘math::const’
You mean include, right?
No, I really do mean require.
I know that the include would be:include Math::Const
Ah, sorry. I understand the issue now. Your wrapper idea sounds
workable. Or maybe ‘require “math/const”’.
I’ve never tried it, but what if the Init_X() function and Y.so (or
Y.dll) have X != Y ?
In other words, does ruby’s loader look for Init_FOO when opening
FOO.so, or will it run any Init_BAR that it finds? I’m guessing not,
from what README.EXT says, but this might solve the problem.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 01:07:02PM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Ah, sorry. I understand the issue now. Your wrapper idea sounds
workable. Or maybe ‘require “math/const”’.
That’s probably the best idea. I think I’ll do that.
After I thought about it, perhaps ‘math::const.rb’ was probably a bad
idea. There might be a system somewhere that might have problems with the
“::” characters.
I’ve never tried it, but what if the Init_X() function and Y.so (or
Y.dll) have X != Y ?In other words, does ruby’s loader look for Init_FOO when opening
FOO.so, or will it run any Init_BAR that it finds? I’m guessing not,
from what README.EXT says, but this might solve the problem.
ruby’s loader looks for Init_FOO in FOO.so and Init_BAR won’t work.
Cheers,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Hi,
Ah, sorry. I understand the issue now. Your wrapper idea sounds
workable. Or maybe ‘require “math/const”’.That’s probably the best idea. I think I’ll do that.
After I thought about it, perhaps ‘math::const.rb’ was probably a bad
idea. There might be a system somewhere that might have problems with the
“::” characters.
Under classical MacOS, “::” meant the parent directory.
Although ruby doesn’t work there.
I’ve never tried it, but what if the Init_X() function and Y.so (or
Y.dll) have X != Y ?In other words, does ruby’s loader look for Init_FOO when opening
FOO.so, or will it run any Init_BAR that it finds? I’m guessing not,
from what README.EXT says, but this might solve the problem.ruby’s loader looks for Init_FOO in FOO.so and Init_BAR won’t work.
Also note that it is case-sensitive.
At Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:46:32 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
–
Nobu Nakada