From: Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
Date: 2013-08-17T13:58:58-07:00
Subject: [ruby-core:56704] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8781] Use require_relative() instead of require() if possible

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 09:00:34PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> (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.

I don't think it should be prohibited.  I am pointing out why I don't
use it (namely LOAD_PATH hacking).

> Why move a file but not edit it?

I am using "file moving" as a way to demonstrate how `require_relative`
couples your file to its location on the file system.  `require` does
not have this coupling.

> 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.

Yes.  I think it's fine, I just don't want to use it.  Are there no more
ways to speed up `require`?

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/