[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Help SWIG to parse SVN_VER_NUM

From: Roman Donchenko <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:12:32 +0400

Hmm. Are you sure? I mean, I don't know Ruby either, but did the SVN_
prefix really disappear? There are definitely the full names in the
SWIG-generated file:

~
   rb_define_const(mCore, "SVN_VER_NUM", SWIG_FromCharPtr("1.7.0"));
   rb_define_const(mCore, "SVN_VER_NUMBER", SWIG_FromCharPtr("1.7.0-dev"));
   rb_define_const(mCore, "SVN_VERSION", SWIG_FromCharPtr("1.7.0 (dev
build)"));
~

Does your test work in 1.6, too?

I've committed my diff anyway, though (r38485), because the only
difference between those newly added lines and the lines I've removed is
the function (SWIG_FromCharPtr vs. rb_str_new2).

Roman.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> писал в своём письме Tue, 28 Jul
2009 19:40:15 +0400:

> A-ha! I was close. It's:
>
> require "svn/core"
> print Svn::Core::VER_NUM + "\n"
>
> +1 to commit your patch, Roman.
>
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> This seems to work fine for Python. But I can't figure out how to test
>> it
>> for Ruby. (I don't know the language.)
>>
>> I've tried something like:
>>
>> require "svn/core"
>> print Svn::Core::SVN_VER_NUM
>>
>> but I get errors. However, I get the same errors using 1.6.x, so that
>> tells
>> me that my testing method is bogus. :-(
>>
>>
>> Roman Donchenko wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the SWIG interface definition files lie within my zone
>>> of
>>> authority, so I'll post to the list this time. 8=]
>>>
>>> [[[
>>> * subversion/bindings/swig/core.i: Add the definition of
>>> APR_STRINGIFY, so
>>> SWIG can parse SVN_VER_NUM and dependent macros. Remove explicit
>>> definitions of said macros from the Ruby-specific code.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> I must admit that the Ruby modifications are completely untested.
>>> Whilst I
>>> can't think of a reason they would be broken by the change, it would
>>> nevertheless be great if somebody confirmed they aren't - which is the
>>> second reason I'm posting this. 8=]
>>>
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2375673
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2376383
Received on 2009-07-28 22:13:04 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.