From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-03-05T03:08:03+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby gems, and the require problem (was Re: RAA Status & b)

Chad Fowler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:43:45 +0900, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Ultimately, I agree with you. Ruby needs RubyGems in the core as a
>>replacement to require without doing 'require "rubygems"'. But it
>>does solve a very real problem, and it solves it reasonably well.
>>
> 
> 
> Well put.  I think a lot of the fire would fade out of this debate if 
> RubyGems were integrated into Ruby in such a way that it didn't
> require anything "special" to work.  That has always been our hope and
> intent.

Chad, why does Gems need to override #require (or provide #require_gem)?
I haven't been able to find a concise explanation and I'd rather not
poke around source code.

E