From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann@...>
Date: 2006-02-05T09:43:57+09:00
Subject: Re: built-in vs. standard library

On 2/4/06, Ross Bamford <rosco@roscopeco.remove.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:23:36 -0000, Mark Volkmann
> <r.mark.volkmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/4/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm confused about whether the Date class is built-in or in the
> >> > standard library.
> >>
> >> It's a standard library.
> >>
> >> > I can use it without requiring it in irb, so that tells me it's
> >> > built-in.
> >>
> >> Na, that tells you that irb requires it somewhere.  :)
> >
> > Then why does this code run?
> >
> > d = Date.new
> > puts "d is a #{d.class}"
> >
> > This is telling me that there is a built-in Date class and there is
> > another one in the Standard Library.
> >
>
> Just curious, what is your output from this code?
>
>         p 1 if defined? Date
>         require 'irb'
>         p 2 if defined? Date
>         require 'rubygems'
>         p 3 if defined? Date

I get
1
2
3

> I just get 3 (which I think is expected). Do you require rubygems in your
> ..irbrc? or $RUBYOPTS?

I'm running Ruby 1.8.4 under Windows XP. I don't have a RUBYOPTS
environment variable set and I get the result above when I put the
code in a file and run it with "ruby myfile.rb", so I guess the .irbrc
part doesn't matter.

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Partner, Object Computing, Inc.