has anybody had any luck, recently, getting the ruby OS X bindings to work
and install?
i've tried both checking out from SVN, and the geos-3.2.0rc4.tar.bz2 tarball
-- when configuring with
./configure --enable-ruby
it clearly wants to create ruby bindings, and they even are existent
in /Library
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> On the friend discussion: you can probably put those not-to-be-exposed
> interfaces in a namespace like "detail", or "impl", or "not_exposed".
...or private
> That will prevent normal C++ programmers from using it, without the
> drawbacks of friends.
I second Barend's voi
The C Api wraps a small portion of the C++ API.
The thing is that in C++ there are *a lot* of interfaces
exposed which should not be.
You might have noticed that many of the headers were not
installed up to 3.1.x. This was an attempt to reduce the
set of exposed interface.
Remember that GEOS i
strk wrote:
> Yes but then we'll have to add new friends everytime a new class is added
> and it's something increasing the maintainance cost.
You're right.
> If we could mark
> a whole namespace as a friend that'd be 1:1 mapping with JTS I guess, and
> no additional maintainance cost.
It's unfo
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:04:26AM +0100, Maxime van Noppen wrote:
> strk wrote:
> > Remember that GEOS is a direct port of JTS, where (in Java)
> > there are visibility levels that are not supported in C++
> > (default visibility == only classes in same package can use
> > those interfaces). In GE
strk wrote:
> Remember that GEOS is a direct port of JTS, where (in Java)
> there are visibility levels that are not supported in C++
> (default visibility == only classes in same package can use
> those interfaces). In GEOS those all became public instead.
I believe it's a design issue. It could
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:55:54PM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> I am not aware of memory leaks related to the C++ API, and if there are some
> there is no reason not to fix them.
I'm not aware either, but it may happen because the clients
we test GEOS again all use the C Api, which doesn't exp
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:22:31PM +0100, Barend Gehrels wrote:
> Leaks? The C Api just wraps it...
The C Api wraps a small portion of the C++ API.
The thing is that in C++ there are *a lot* of interfaces
exposed which should not be.
You might have noticed that many of the headers were not
insta
