On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Hirosh= i Nakamura <naka= hiro@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 16:21, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this also mean that we will not enhance const_missing to support = nested
> modules?

No, it doesn't. =A0I explained your request at #2740 first, and w= e
discussed the way to solve it (no conclusion yet.) =A0I'll update #2740=
later.

> I think it is still possible to make require itself threadsafe, if we = use a
> single lock for requires, as Charlie Nutter has previously proposed.

I don't know that single lock solution is acceptable, because the=
cross-require issue is caused by developer's error we think, and
should be easily avoidable (Just don't do!) =A0It would be too big
restriction to save this error.

The few= cases I have personally discovered in Rails were complex cases that weren&= #39;t obvious at first glance. When a lot of code is involved in the autolo= ad process, it's very easy for some cross-require cases to exist (usual= ly through intermediate code).

In my mind, making threadsafety guarantees about requir= e, even if they come with some caveats, is far better than simply warning d= evelopers not to do "the wrong thing" in their apps or libraries = in the case where code is being loaded lazily in the presence of threads.

=A0

In contrast to it, autoload can cause unintentional cross-require. =A0So I talked to Matz about #2740.

> Honestly, if we improve const_missing and make `require` capable of be= ing
> threadsafe, it will be easy to implement autoload in terms of those > primitives.

I explained exactly along the same line, not sure Matz agreed or not<= br> though. =A0Let's keep discussing in #2740.

--20cf307abf2f84f9bc04b21215a5--