From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2004-12-09T03:15:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Require Gems (was Re: [ANN] RubyScript2Exe 0.2.0)

On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:

>>> require 'foo' will always load the version from RubyGems, if you're
>>> referring to that. Once you require 'rubygems', it overrides
>>> Kernel.require and it is no longer possible to load the files in the
>>> standard library dir, unless you use the GEM_SKIP env. variable.
>>
>> Hmm, is this a good thing?  If Ruby Gems replaces the require(),
>> couldn't it be set to try the old require() when a Gem require fails?
>> Just a thought.
>
> I didn't phrase that correctly. require 'foo' will load preferentially
> the file in the gemdir (instead of the one in sitelibdir as usual).

That makes a lot more sense to me.  Thanks for setting me straight.

James Edward Gray II