From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2007-12-23T03:12:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Status of two issues



On Dec 22, 8:58 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Status of two issues"
>     on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:47:57 +0900, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |> Could you submit URL or mail ID [ruby-core:xxxx] along with your
> |> questions, please?
> |
> |http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15213&group_id...
> |
> |http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=14947&group_id...
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regarding the former, autoload is still done by direct C function
> callm but it is perhaps solved by RubyGems integration in 1.9, but I
> have not yet confirmed.  Anyone?
>
> I don't consider the latter a bug, rather it's only an application of
> DuckTyping (or ChikenTyping one might say).

Thanks for looking at these, Matz.

For the autoload, the problem arises in that I'm using my own special
system for loading files. It's not just a Gems issue per se. My system
works great, but there is no way to override how autoload loads files.
B/c of this I can't use my system on anything that uses autoload --
which is a serious show-stopper.

For the other, I take it you did not follow the conversion about this
on ruby-talk. The problem is that if someone defines an Object#meta or
Kernel#meta extension method it will cause open-uri to bomb. Besides
that, open_uri is simply using the #respond_to?  to test to see if its
Meta module has been included, so changing it to is_a? is actually
more precise to the authors intention.

T.