Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Will Green
Cool beans! I noticed in the latest push that a change was made to Ruby Gems itself: http://github.com/ironruby/ironruby/commit/82cb04621b505dea5a010c70827addc2de6227ba#diff-0 Someone should contribute that change to the Ruby Gems project as well. -- Will Green http://hotgazpacho.org/ On

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Shri Borde
We should push the change once the dust settles down. Let’s wait until the RTM to make sure that this all actually works as we would like it to. In the meantime, I would encourage all gem authors to play with this and see if there are any issues. “gem build” had the issue mentioned below. Not

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Will Green
I'd have to talk to Luis Lavena, the current maintainer of win32console. I might also have to make some code changes or test changes to make the .Net specific stuff a no-op on the C version of Ruby (otherwise, it won't even run). But I'd certainly be open to this. I'll drop him a line this

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Shri Borde
The whole point of changing RbConfig::CONFIG[“arch”] was to be able to have two independent gem files. So you should not need to have to modify Luis Lavena’s code, right? And people installing win32console with MRI should not run any of your code, right? You could certainly drop him a line as

Re: [Ironruby-core] Mono setup

2010-03-05 Thread Ryan Riley
Fantastic! Thanks, Ivan. That worked. I think my problem was that I hadn't run 'chmod +x' on the .dll files. I hope that helps someone else. Okay, as far as building IronRubyhttp://wiki.github.com/ironruby/ironruby/building#wiki_building-mono, I'm still having some issues. I pulled down Ivan's

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Will Green
I may not fully understand the Gem process here, so please pardon any ignorance. As I understand it, the ability to have separate, per-platform gem files for one Gem name would require that the code for all the platforms is present in the source of the Gem. That way, when you gem install XXX, the

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Shri Borde
The gem file name does include the platform information. That would seem to imply that gems for different platforms will live in different gem files. I am not too knowledge about the Gem process as well, so I may be incorrect as well… From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: SymToProc

2010-03-05 Thread Jim Deville
So we're going to have sym#to_proc available in the core 1.8 implementation? Other than that question, this looks good. Now I have to go remove some hacks ;) JD -Original Message- From: Tomas Matousek Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:22 PM To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers Cc:

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: Encs2

2010-03-05 Thread Jim Deville
Please check newlines in the tags file, looks like 2 lines got joined. Nice catch in each_char.rb Rest looks good from hear. JD -Original Message- From: Tomas Matousek Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:24 PM To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org Subject:

[Ironruby-core] Code Review: SymToProc

2010-03-05 Thread Tomas Matousek
tfpt review /shelveset:SymToProc;REDMOND\tomat Comment : Implements Symbol#to_proc Tomas SymToProc.diff Description: SymToProc.diff ___ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Will Green
See http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/20#platform Basically, most gems contain pure Ruby code. Some gems contain C (or Java, or now possibly C#) code that gets compiled at gem install time. Some gems even include pre-compiled code. You will find that the overwhelming majority of these

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: SymToProc

2010-03-05 Thread Tomas Matousek
Yep, we already have other methods from 1.8.7, like instance_exec. The advantage of having these in 1.8.6 is that it will work in apps that check if to_proc method is present. I guess they might do some eval magic if the method is not implemented which slows things down. Tomas -Original

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: SymToProc

2010-03-05 Thread Jim Deville
Probably no eval magic, unless you are thinking of a more advanced version of Sym#to_proc than I have been using. I define it with: Class Symbol Def to_proc Lambda {|x| x.send(self)} End End Sure, it doesn't cover everything, but it hits the 90% cases. -Original Message- From: Tomas

Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: SymToProc

2010-03-05 Thread Tomas Matousek
Yes, something like this might be quite accurate: class Symbol def to_proc Proc.new do |*args| raise ArgumentError if args.size == 0 target = args.delete_at(0) target.send(self, *args) end end end instance_exec on the other hand is also 1.8.7 method

Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems

2010-03-05 Thread Shri Borde
rake-compiler does support fat binaries gem (http://tenderlovemaking.com/2009/05/07/fat-binary-gems-make-the-rockin-world-go-round/) which is a single gem file with binaries for multiple platforms. However, the main reason to do this is to support both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9 which need different