[#43120] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6124][Open] What is the purpose of "fake" gems in Ruby — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

27 messages 2012/03/07

[#43142] Questions about thread performance (with benchmark included) — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

A while ago I've written an article entitled "How Nokogiri and JRuby

10 messages 2012/03/08

[#43148] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6126][Open] Introduce yes/no constants aliases for true/false — Egor Homakov <homakov@...>

16 messages 2012/03/09

[#43238] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6130][Open] inspect using to_s is pain — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

21 messages 2012/03/11

[#43313] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6150][Open] add Enumerable#grep_v — Suraj Kurapati <sunaku@...>

17 messages 2012/03/15

[#43325] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6154][Open] Eliminate extending WaitReadable/Writable at runtime — Charles Nutter <headius@...>

25 messages 2012/03/16

[#43334] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6155][Open] Enumerable::Lazy#flat_map raises an exception when an element does not respond to #each — Dan Kubb <dan.kubb@...>

9 messages 2012/03/16

[#43370] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6166][Open] Enumerator::Lazy#pinch — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

15 messages 2012/03/17

[#43373] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6168][Open] Segfault in OpenSSL bindings — Nguma Abojo <git.email.address@...>

14 messages 2012/03/17

[#43454] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6174][Open] Fix collision of ConditionVariable#wait timeout and #signal (+ other cosmetic changes) — "funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov)" <funny.falcon@...>

10 messages 2012/03/18

[#43497] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6179][Open] File::pos broken in Windows 1.9.3p125 — "jmthomas (Jason Thomas)" <jmthomas@...>

24 messages 2012/03/20

[#43502] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6180][Open] to_b for converting objects to a boolean value — "AaronLasseigne (Aaron Lasseigne)" <aaron.lasseigne@...>

17 messages 2012/03/20

[#43529] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6183][Open] Enumerator::Lazy performance issue — "gregolsen (Innokenty Mikhailov)" <anotheroneman@...>

36 messages 2012/03/21

[#43543] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6184][Open] [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.3p165 (2012-03-18 revision 35078) [x86_64-darwin11.3.0] — "Gebor (Pierre-Henry Frohring)" <frohring.pierrehenry@...>

8 messages 2012/03/21

[#43672] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6201][Open] do_something then return :special_case (include "then" operator) — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>

12 messages 2012/03/26

[#43678] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6203][Open] Array#values_at does not handle ranges with end index past the end of the array — "ferrous26 (Mark Rada)" <markrada26@...>

15 messages 2012/03/26

[#43794] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6216][Open] SystemStackError backtraces should not be reduced to one line — "postmodern (Hal Brodigan)" <postmodern.mod3@...>

15 messages 2012/03/28

[#43814] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6219][Open] Return value of Hash#store — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>

20 messages 2012/03/28

[#43858] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6222][Open] Use ++ to connect statements — "gcao (Guoliang Cao)" <gcao99@...>

12 messages 2012/03/29

[#43904] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6225][Open] Hash#+ — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

36 messages 2012/03/29

[#43951] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6228][Open] [mingw] Errno::EBADF in ruby/test_io.rb on ruby_1_9_3 — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>

28 messages 2012/03/30

[#43996] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6236][Open] WEBrick::HTTPServer swallows Exception — "regularfry (Alex Young)" <alex@...>

13 messages 2012/03/31

[ruby-core:43477] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4523] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file

From: Alex Young <alex@...>
Date: 2012-03-19 17:16:11 UTC
List: ruby-core #43477
On 19/03/12 11:58, Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Alex Young<alex@blackkettle.org>  wrote:
>> On 18/03/12 10:22, nobu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Issue #4523 has been updated by nobu.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it's useful if it may return false.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary - if it returns false, you know the set of loaded files
>> hasn't changed.  You (should) know that no new ruby has been parsed.
>>
>
> What if your require triggers more requires inside?  The usefulness of
 > you collecting the response of one require doesn't mean you have all
 > the files that were loaded.


This is the sort of thing I have in mind:

   module CollectingRequire
     def require( *args )
       filename = super(*args)
       __log( filename )
       filename
     end

     def __log(filename)
       (@__loaded ||= []) << filename
     end

     def all_loaded
       @__loaded
     end
   end

   extend( CollectingRequire )

   require 'highline'

   all_loaded
     # => [all the files]

That's the sort of arrangement I'd need; I'm sure there are uses which 
don't involve monkeypatching.

I could do just as well with a post-require hook of some sort, but 
that's way more intrusive.  If that's what's needed, though, I'm happy 
to take a look at an implementation.

>>
>>> What's the use case?
>>> I agree that the way to know the loaded path would be useful sometimes,
>>> but this doesn't seem nice.
>>
>>
>> The specific thing I was trying to do was gather all the required files into
>> a SQLite database.  Then a later process with an overridden `require` can
>> load *precisely* the same file content from that database, without
>> ambiguity.
>>
>
> Are you trying to build a list of all the files that were require'd ?
>
> If so, why not use $LOADED_FEATURES with at_exit?

Because when I opened this feature request a year ago $LOADED_FEATURES 
didn't seem to include full paths, so I didn't want to rely on it.

> $LOADED_FEATURES include full paths

Does it?  Is that now part of the spec?  Neither rubinius nor jruby seem 
to make that guarantee, nor is it true for 1.8.7.  And if it is...

  $ irb
1.9.3p125 :001 > $LOADED_FEATURES.first
  => "enumerator.so"

Is that a bug?

> so you can use that combined with $LOAD_PATH to determine the require itself.

I can, and do, already do something like this.  The point is that by 
adding this information to the API, I don't have to - I get a known-good 
value directly from where it's generated, rather than recreating it (and 
possibly screwing it up).  I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd find this 
handy.

If anyone can spot how this proposal can *possibly* be harmful, I'm all 
ears.  As far as I can see it's an unintrusive, useful improvement.

-- 
Alex

In This Thread