--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 06:28:09AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Are functions accessible via ruby/intern.h considered to be "public"
> > API? =A0In other words: are C extensions allowed to use the functions in
> > there without fear of the header file being removed?
> >
> > I'm using some of these functions, but I want to avoid a situation like
> > we had with node.h. =A0Thanks!
>=20
> This topic is one of faq. summy of past discussion are
>=20
>  - Ruby team never announced it's public APIs. and It was intended
> "Intern"al functions.
>  - However, many many gems depend on intern.h. so we can't break it
> for compatiblity.
>  - Some critical dangerous functions are gradually moving from
> intern.h to internal.h.
>    but it's not completed.
>  - Further, intern.h might become just only have one line #include
> <ruby.h> and almost functions move to ruby.h or internal.h in the
> future. but it's still a status of just idea.
>=20
> In short, It depend on your using functions. but almost functions are
> ok at least 2.0. (2.0 has compatibility with 1.9). we have to accept
> this historical accident. ;-)

Can we make rb_path2class officially public?  :-D

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOzHfWAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GOHUIAIsNvTalLgVuV2TEKK7LXcEb
jOwAxieS7uhPz9VkeEq77D2q+fmy0ri1x1p6jXw7ZJ+IdHdwLZNON9nmVjkw/O5o
8QnCwE1+7L0+A2mSjwg7fo3N8sJHF5tWnozMGFbsaKyRpbmWtAhYmyW5wfedatds
dCaJ5sx1O+u6m1Y71A81TiOAIVPhcZk5FVcHtLpRV26BcG2ZM9EQZlq/8X/rGwjg
QzismEWm+L5GiW9Pj/oGVsyTLRfJFpBED6CJGuaJMhkDxvFIi+EdXn06siHwJW+r
HBVSJwrsEHxI8pC1EX40y5c9RRti2ydKBa/pxkHrEGt0eV4cKwxQuIeMsLKVpaw=
=beKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 06:28:09AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Are functions accessible via ruby/intern.h considered to be "public"
> > API? =A0In other words: are C extensions allowed to use the functions in
> > there without fear of the header file being removed?
> >
> > I'm using some of these functions, but I want to avoid a situation like
> > we had with node.h. =A0Thanks!
>=20
> This topic is one of faq. summy of past discussion are
>=20
>  - Ruby team never announced it's public APIs. and It was intended
> "Intern"al functions.
>  - However, many many gems depend on intern.h. so we can't break it
> for compatiblity.
>  - Some critical dangerous functions are gradually moving from
> intern.h to internal.h.
>    but it's not completed.
>  - Further, intern.h might become just only have one line #include
> <ruby.h> and almost functions move to ruby.h or internal.h in the
> future. but it's still a status of just idea.
>=20
> In short, It depend on your using functions. but almost functions are
> ok at least 2.0. (2.0 has compatibility with 1.9). we have to accept
> this historical accident. ;-)

Can we make rb_path2class officially public?  :-D

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOzHfWAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GOHUIAIsNvTalLgVuV2TEKK7LXcEb
jOwAxieS7uhPz9VkeEq77D2q+fmy0ri1x1p6jXw7ZJ+IdHdwLZNON9nmVjkw/O5o
8QnCwE1+7L0+A2mSjwg7fo3N8sJHF5tWnozMGFbsaKyRpbmWtAhYmyW5wfedatds
dCaJ5sx1O+u6m1Y71A81TiOAIVPhcZk5FVcHtLpRV26BcG2ZM9EQZlq/8X/rGwjg
QzismEWm+L5GiW9Pj/oGVsyTLRfJFpBED6CJGuaJMhkDxvFIi+EdXn06siHwJW+r
HBVSJwrsEHxI8pC1EX40y5c9RRti2ydKBa/pxkHrEGt0eV4cKwxQuIeMsLKVpaw=
=beKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----