(2011/11/23 13:34), Aaron Patterson wrote: > 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? In 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. Thanks! >> >> This topic is one of faq. summy of past discussion are >> >> - 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. >> >> 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 The official public API is the one described in README.EXT(.ja). So make a ticket for moving them to ruby.h with the documentation. -- NARUSE, Yui <naruse / airemix.jp>