Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem

On 9/26/05, Austin Ziegler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 9/26/05, TRANS <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 9/26/05, Austin Ziegler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Two things. 1. I don't see any particular reason for this. It's neat,
> >> but I don't see why it's necessary. 2. If something is loaded from a
> >> particular "namespaced" path, that path should remain on the load
> >> list, because not everything in a path may actually be loaded with a
> >> single require.
> > It circumvents the need for a #require_local.
>
> Um. This is circular. What's the purpose of #require_local? More to the
> point, I don't see the point of require_local. It's neat, but
> unnecessarily dangerous.

Dangerous?

> > In doing so it reduces "dependencies" in lib files. What I mean by
> > that is I don't have to specify absolute paths in internal lib files.
>
> If the purpose is less typing, I see even less value.

No, it independence from absolutes. WHy does XML have namespaces? Same thing.

> [...]
> >   require 'nano' # adds the namespace
> >   require 'nano:integer/odd'
> >   require 'nano:integer/factorial'
>
> Hm. I don't like it, in any case. It *feels* wrong and unnecessary.

Well, feelings are one thing. Do you have any more constructive
critisism? I mean I wonder if there's any actual issues wtih this
approach --beyond how it feels.

> > Finally, it also allows one to organize ones lib directory
> > independently of how they are required by the end-user. For instance:
> >
> >   $LOAD_SPACE['somelib'] = %w{
> >      somelib/onedir
> >      somelib/onedir/subdir
> >      somelib/twodir
> >   }
>
> Better would be to just organise your libs intelligently.

But that's the point. I'd rather not maintain a single directory with
100+ files? No, I'd rather break them up into some reasonable
categories, even though I want the end user to be able access them
through one interface.

T.