From: David Vallner <david@...>
Date: 2006-08-18T07:25:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Perl Junkie: Bad form?

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:05:04 +0200, /usr/ceo <newsbot@cox.net> wrote:
>> Those who remember, I actually advocate allowing the client
>> programmer create a namespace for libraries instead of the
>> library writer, too, but that is another discussion.
>
> So are you advocating this (by your last statement especially)?
>
> my/utils.rb:
>
> module Utils
>    def mputs( *args )
>       args.each { |n| puts n }
>    end # def
> end # module
>
> myscript.rb:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
>
> require 'my/utils'
> include Utils
>
> mputs(
>    "Line 1",
>    "Line 2",
>    "Line 3"
> )

If I understood right, he advocates adding into ruby a construct that  
would do:

my/utils.rb:
	
	def mputs( *args )
		args.each { |n| puts n }
	end

myscript.rb:

	require 'my/utils' as Utils
	Utils.mputs("Womble", "Fluff")

where if you'd omit the 'as' clause, mputs would be in the global  
namespace.

Which is a nifty idea, but I'd also like to see file-scoped or  
lexically-scoped require along with it, since this still lets someone  
thrash the global namespace for scripts that are unaware of this.