On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm not entirely opposed to the idea... but am curious for some example >>> functions. :) -sc >> >> XML::Parser.register_error_handler could be implemented in ruby. >> ruby_xml_attr_not_type_name() could be implemented in ruby. >> >> All of the rb_define_consts in ruby_xml_node.c >> >> ruby_xml_node_set_xpath_get() in ruby_xml_node_set.c >> >> Thats all I can remember for now! haha! >> >> I haven't read through all of the code, but I'm just guessing there >> are more things.... > > > Hrm, alright. > > If the C version has bugs and someone (i.e. you) submits a bug free version > that's pure ruby, I think it'd get committed if fixing the C version takes > more than a few minutes. From a speed and memory perspective, I'd err on > the side of keeping things in C (libxml != REXML), but since most all of the > heavy lifting is happening in C anyway, it doesn't take much to convince > that it'd belong in ruby if there's a bug. > > Said differently, let sleeping dogs lie and don't waste effort unless effort > needs to be expended to fix something... patches welcome. *grin* > > How's that? -sc
Perfect. I will submit patches. It does not seem like wasted effort to me because I would much rather read Ruby than C. Also, I've found that in my large C extension project, having as more Ruby helps my brain keep things in order! -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
