Feature #13381: [PATCH] Expose rb_fstring and its family to C extensions

• Status: Assigned
• Priority: Normal
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -

[eagletmt (Kohei Suzuki)]

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1559

Currently, C extensions cannot use fstrings. I'd like to use
rb_fstring_cstr instead of rb_str_new_cstr for static strings in C
extensions to avoid excess allocation.

I think there's several use cases.

• https://github.com/k0kubun/hamlit/blob/v2.8.0/ext/hamlit/hamlit.c#L508-L512
• https://bitbucket.org/ged/ruby-pg/src/e5eb92cca97abc0c6fc168acfad993c2ad314589/ext/pg_connection.c?at=v0.20.0&fileviewer=file-view-default#pg_connection.c-3679
• https://bitbucket.org/ged/ruby-pg/src/e5eb92cca97abc0c6fc168acfad993c2ad314589/ext/pg_copy_coder.c?at=v0.20.0&fileviewer=file-view-default#pg_copy_coder.c-38

[ko1 (Koichi Sasada)]

• Status changed from Open to Feedback

I can understand use cases but we shouldn't expose the name "fstring".

[eagletmt (Kohei Suzuki)]

OK, I've read comments of #13077.

What do you think of renaming fstring to "deduped" string? "Deduped" strings are implicitly frozen.

• Rename rb_fstring to rb_str_deduped
• Rename rb_fstring_new to rb_str_deduped_new
• Rename rb_fstring_cstr to rb_str_deduped_cstr
• Rename rb_fstring_enc_new to rb_enc_str_deduped_new
• Rename rb_fstring_enc_cstr to rb_enc_str_deduped_cstr
  • I think enc should come first for consistency

[ko1 (Koichi Sasada)]

• Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
• Status changed from Feedback to Assigned

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

• Assignee deleted (ko1 (Koichi Sasada))

How about fixed_str?

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

• Has duplicate Feature #16029: Expose fstring related APIs to C-extensions added