Like we talked about earlier, let’s give an update on what we are
working on
I’m working on hacking optparse to work so that we can update to the
newest Rubinius spec’s. Then I’ll be closing out a whole slew of bugs.
Jim D.
I’m still working on the shelveset that I sent out for code review
earlier today (bugfixes9). We found a few more issues when we did the
code review. The most interesting case is this one:
We normally define methods that accept symbol using a signature that
takes a SymbolId, eg:
[RubyMethod(“attr”, RubyMethodAttributes.PrivateInstance)]
public static void Attr(CodeContext/!/ context, RubyModule/!/ self,
SymbolId name) {
DefineAccessor(context, self, name, true, false);
}
Methods like these will blow up if you pass it a ‘string-like’ thing. We
have a Protocol to convert these things - Protocols.CastToSymbol(),
which does the right thing, which is call to_str on the target.
We have an open question right now which is whether we should bake in
object to SymbolId conversions in the binder or whether we should handle
them in a case by case basis by defining an overload that accepts an
Object, and calling Protocols.CastToSymbol() on that object.
Once I get this shelveset past the troll, I’ll work next on getting
socket.cs and the ironi regex library into the tree.
Thanks,
-John
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim D.
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 2:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ironruby-core] Friday Status Update
Like we talked about earlier, let’s give an update on what we are
working on
I’m working on hacking optparse to work so that we can update to the
newest Rubinius spec’s. Then I’ll be closing out a whole slew of bugs.
Jim D.
Michael L.:
need to block out some time.
Tomas has spent quite some time looking at a dual byte-array +
char-array MutableString implementation. It was sitting in his work
queue to tackle after his current work on eval and blocks. Perhaps you
could share some of your findings with him around the zlib integration
effort so that we don’t duplicate our efforts?
Thanks!
-John
I’ve been looking at what it would take to start using byte arrays
rather
then strings for the backing store for MutableString. It’s one heck of
a
rabbit hole, I can get it /almost/ working… either I fail one spec, or
three… and they’re totally different. Anyway, if noone else is
working on
it I’ll continue to see what I can do, this is related to the zlib issue
with binary files (or actually any file that contains bytes over 127
potentially) as data is passed around as strings and not byte arrays.
Oh and I hope to implement actual compression sometime soon… just need
to
block out some time.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM, John L. (IRONRUBY)
[email protected]
I might be right off track here and since I haven’t seen any of the
detailed
discussion about the question below I might be being completely naive.
The open question should really be targeting all standard conversion
protocols in Ruby.
In my mind it seems that the way Ruby works generally is to have a load
of
these “protocols” for type conversion, but that it is not enforced by
the
language at all and that it is entirely up the library developer to
follow
suit. While this allows ultimate freedom for the developer it obviously
does allow inconsistency to creep in.
I would feel uncomfortable baking these protocols into the binder,
unless
there was some way of overriding them in library code, since this is
perfectly possible in MRI. For instance, it must be possible in at
least
some cases to monkey patch code that by default uses the standard
conversion
protocol so that it does something different (e.g. converts strings to
symbols in some other way???)
Clearly this is not a good thing to do in general but since Ruby allows
it
as a language, it seems that it should be supported in IronRuby.
Happy to be completely wrong here.
Pete
Yes, we have Protocols class that implements various flavors of
conversions that are used in libraries.
The binder idea is that there would be an attribute you can apply on C#
methods that would disable the default conversions implemented in
binder. So if 90% of methods do the conversion one way their
implementation could be simplified. The rest would be marked by the
attribute.
Tomas
Tomas M. wrote:
Yes, we have Protocols class that implements various flavors of conversions that are used in libraries.
The binder idea is that there would be an attribute you can apply on C# methods that would disable the default conversions implemented in binder. So if 90% of methods do the conversion one way their implementation could be simplified. The rest would be marked by the attribute.
Nice, I’ll have to add that. At the moment, everything generifies to a
common type, and the method itself calls the appropriate coercion
mechanism. But it would be nice to eliminate that.
- Charlie
Peter Bacon D. wrote:
does allow inconsistency to creep in.
I would feel uncomfortable baking these protocols into the binder, unless
there was some way of overriding them in library code, since this is
perfectly possible in MRI. For instance, it must be possible in at least
some cases to monkey patch code that by default uses the standard conversion
protocol so that it does something different (e.g. converts strings to
symbols in some other way???)Clearly this is not a good thing to do in general but since Ruby allows it
as a language, it seems that it should be supported in IronRuby.
FYI, there are a few cases in the core classes that use e.g to_s or to_a
instead of to_str or to_ary to coerce. I don’t remember them off the top
of my head.
- Charlie
Charles Oliver N.:
The binder idea is that there would be an attribute you can apply on
C# methods that would disable the default conversions implemented in
binder. So if 90% of methods do the conversion one way their
implementation could be simplified. The rest would be marked by the
attribute.Nice, I’ll have to add that. At the moment, everything generifies to a
common type, and the method itself calls the appropriate coercion
mechanism. But it would be nice to eliminate that.
The other nice thing about this is that it would be trivial to generate
a report on all of the exceptions. This way we can drive some meaningful
design discussions about all of the exceptional cases and get them fixed
in the libs.
-John