From: Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
Date: 2013-08-17T21:00:34+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:56686] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8781] Use require_relative() instead of require() if possible

(13/08/17 13:13), Aaron Patterson wrote:
> First, it *is* a real use case (as in, people actually use it in *real*
> projects):
> 
> [aaron@higgins ruby (trunk)]$ git grep require_relative | grep '\.\.' | wc -l
>       45
> [aaron@higgins ruby (trunk)]$

It's only in test directory, and almost is test/ruby/envutil.rb.

I agree that require_relative fits something but may not other.
That example tells us that envutil.rb shouldn't be bound in test/ruby.

> Again, "foo.rb" is completely independent of the filesystem.  The files
> it depends on did not change, so it did not have to change.
> 
> I am uncertain how to make the coupling between "require_relative" and
> the filesystem more clear than this.

But I don't think your point enough to prohibit to use require_relative.
Why move a file but not edit it?
An author can use it when one thinks it is useful, it's the author's choice.
This proposal is just a proposal, but not mandatory.

-- 
Nobu Nakada