From: Han Holl <han.holl@...>
Date: 2005-09-17T04:25:35+09:00
Subject: Re: bug in require?

------=_Part_9125_14149565.1126898731686
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/16/05, Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> harp:~ > cat ./require.rb
> require 'rbconfig.rb'
> module Kernel
> alias_method '__require__', 'require'
> def require lib
> if((ext =3D lib[ %r/\.[^\.]+$/ ]))
> __require__ lib
> else
> dlext, dlext2 =3D ::Config::CONFIG['DLEXT'], ::Config::CONFIG['DLEXT2']
> __require__ "#{ lib }.#{ dlext }" rescue
> __require__ "#{ lib }.#{ dlext2 }" rescue
> __require__ "#{ lib }.rb"
> end
> end
> end
>=20
>=20
>=20
Yes, that's one way of dealing with it.
Another approach that I find attractive is autoload. I think in the case of=
=20
the Digest namespace, one could write:
module Digest
autoload :MD5, 'digest/md5'
end
Autoloading also has the advantage of looser coupling, lazy loading and=20
auto-determining load order in case of (almost cyclic) dependencies.
It should perform better than redundant requires as well, but I doubt this=
=20
is noticeable.

Cheers,

Han Holl

------=_Part_9125_14149565.1126898731686--