(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>