From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-09-26T20:37:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Finally an answer to my RubyGems question and some small suggestions

On 9/25/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> I appreciate those that attempted to offer me some info on this issue.
> I found an answer to much of my query:

>   # We replace Ruby's require with our own, which is capable of
>   # loading gems on demand.
>   #
>   # When you call <tt>require 'x'</tt>, this is what happens:
>   # * If the file can be loaded from the existing Ruby loadpath, it
>   #   is.
>   # * Otherwise, installed gems are searched for a file that matches.
>   #   If it's found in gem 'y', that gem is activated (added to the
>   #   loadpath).
>   #
>   # The normal <tt>require</tt> functionality of returning false if
>   # that file has already been loaded is preserved.
>   #
>
> So the order of the search is:
>
>   site_ruby
>   ruby
>   gems

Unfortunately, the answer isn't *quite* that simple. It's site_ruby,
ruby, gems. When the gem is activated (with require_gem or
automatically), the gem's path is then added *before* site_ruby.

> module Kernel
>   alias require__ require
>
> The __ looks terrible, especailly in error output. Something like
>
>   alias require_without_gems require

This, of course, will no longer be necessary when RubyGems is integrated
into the core.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca