From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-10-01T11:03:26+09:00
Subject: Re: FXRuby help

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 10:24:59PM +0900, Lyle Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:38:51 +0900, Jamis Buck <jgb3@email.byu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > (Incidentally, the examples would do well to just say 'require
>> "fox"', instead of the explicit rubygems dependency...)
>>
>> Yes, that's being fixed for the next release. I didn't understand what
>> RubyGems' stub libraries were at the time I wrote the examples that
>> way,
>
> RubyGems doesn't use stubs anymore; it redefines Kernel#require to
> search the "gem dirs" at require time. I believe it's a good idea not to
> add  require 'rubygems'  to the examples anyway: the user can
> set RUBYOPT as needed.

I disagree.  Setting RUBYOPT is a PITA, as well as being fragile.  I'd put
this in the example:

  require 'rubygems'         # If appropriate.
  require 'fox'

People need to appreciate that if they install something as a gem, they
need to  require 'rubygems'  in order to use it.  The example above is a
clear way of reinforcing that.  People can then decide to use RUBYOPT, or
some other strategy, as they wish.

Cheers,
Gavin