From: Neil Stevens Date: 2004-06-13T07:33:48+09:00 Subject: Re: Switch to .ruby extension? Karl von Laudermann wrote: > Neil Stevens wrote in message > news:<3Rlyc.22289$TR1.4566@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>... >> Karl von Laudermann wrote: >> >> > ... we could start using .ruby in new projects. >> >> What stops you from doing so now? > > Well, at home I have a Mac, so I will probably use .ruby from now on, > since I can just start each file with the line "#!/usr/local/bin/ruby" > to tell it how to run. However, I'll have to specify the full filename > when I use the require or load methods. But at work, where I use > Windows, I'd have to manually map the .ruby extension to ruby.exe on > every machine that the scripts have to run on. I will have to remember > to do this each time a new machine needs to run my Ruby scripts, when > I first install Ruby on it. So I'll probably stick to .rb at work. I don't understand why it matters what the file names are for libraries. What are you going to do if/when ruby starts getting some preprocessing like Python gets? If you're hard-coding the full file names that'll break your scripts, won't it? The only user-visible file names are the script names, so those seem to be the only ones that should matter. Yes, make sure to do /usr/bin/env ruby, not /usr/local/bin/ruby. The former will work work for more people (like those who have to put ruby in $(HOME)/bin). -- Neil Stevens - neil @hakubi.us "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -- Albert Einstein(?)