I assume then we will be using the RubyLibrary, RubyClass, RubyMethod attributes, et al to implement that then?
On Feb 13, 2008 9:00 PM, John Messerly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Letterle: > > > Yes, my only point is that the way it works today a .NET class becomes > > a Ruby class and a .NET method becomes a Ruby method. Nothing is > > stopping one from writing a .NET assembly so that it "feels" like Ruby > > when it's compiled. > > > > That said, I can see the advantage of being able to use the RubyClass > > and RubyMethod attributes outside of that.. > > > > Is the performance between this and utilizing an Initializer that > > great? > > > > Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting writing the library as > a .rb file & using .NET interop features to call into the .NET code. > > Yeah, you couldn't just write it in C# because we need the initializer to > give proper Ruby method names & public/protected/private/instance/singleton > metadata. It's also a performance win because we don't need to use reflection > to pull out the metadata at runtime. > > > - John > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > -- Michael Letterle [Polymath Programmer] http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
