From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-forum-reg@...>
Date: 2005-12-17T05:57:16+09:00
Subject: Re: scoped_require 0.0

Devin Mullins wrote:
> Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> 
>>You also dislike alias_method, don't you? ;-)
>>  
>>
> I tried to pollute the namespace as little as possible. (And then I
> refactored and created Module#find_or_create_module, but whatever.) I
> also tried to be as 'cute' as possible (but that was a tertiary 
> concern).
> 
>>wouldn't that break code like
>>
>># foo.rb
>>class String
>># instead of class ::String
>>  def foo; "foo #{self}" end
>>end
>>  
>>
> Good point, yes... I suppose I could inject #clones of the toplevel
> namespace's constants into the container module... 'twould be a little
> performance-heavy, so maybe I'd make that an option, ���a:
>     require 'foo', :module => :Foo, :import => [String, Hash]
> Would that work? Do you have a better idea?

I recall talking about this some time ago, either here
or on #ruby-lang, and someone (Austin Ziegler, maybe?)
came up with a workable solution. I will see if I can
locate that code. In the meanwhile, see if you can
search the archives for it.

>># app.rb
>>require 'a', :module => :A
>>
>>Should 'something' be scoped to B, A, A::B, or not at all?
>>And if it is loaded under some module, should it be added to $"?
>>  
>>
> I should be deadling with that, now. Without running the above code, I'm
> pretty sure 'something'll get loaded under A::B. And my require override
> uses @__require_feature rather than $", so it's specific to each
> container module.
> 
> Although, admittedly, I probably could use a couple of unit tests to
> test the interaction between scoped requires and non-scoped requires
> (and $").
> 
>>So it seems scoped_require would work best with 1-file libs that don't
>>mess with code classes. In other cases, it could still be useful: there's
>>nothing wrong with encouraging lecture ;-)
>>  
>>
> Well, definitely more than one file -- it was in my requirements (using
> RubyfulSoup) that nested requires work.* But yeah, I couldn't imagine
> that require 'rails', :module => :Rails would work. :P
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I may add the import thing later.
> 
> Devin
> * Well, sort of. It's actually the main file, rubyful_soup.rb, that
> defines the Tag class, not its dependency, sgml_parser.rb, so I could've
> gotten away with not handling nested requires. But I was having fun... 
> :)


E


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.