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
