> possible (including all the things we expect to have as rubyists, > like the above) then there won't be any unexpected gotchas that > could bite in code that would otherwise be nice and quick. > > On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind > of 'easy' API built on top of the core library, if there was enough > to it, and it was sufficiently 'easy', but then again that's > probably for another (dependent) project. But in this sense I don't > consider methods like 'first' and 'empty?' as easy - I consider them > essential parts of the core library. > > Anyway, that's just me. Sean might have a different view...(?)
And I do! The C library could easily include, mixin, or inherit bits from a plain text ruby library. As bottlenecks and performance issues are identified (or as time permits), the ruby library could be converted to C. The `require 'libxml'` line should include the .so, but if the .so includes additional ruby files, who cares... this'll provide an easy way for us to prototype new APIs before they get integrated into the core. -- Sean Chittenden _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
