From: John Joyce Date: 2007-07-02T00:24:35+09:00 Subject: Re: Given a class, what is the 'require' line? On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Swaroop C H wrote: > On 7/1/07, Stefan Rusterholz wrote: >> I'd vote for having the require line obligatory for stdlib libraries >> documentation. I'd also appreciate it, if at least stdlib would >> follow >> the convention for file names. Unless I'm mistaken and having >> filenames >> all lowercase of the class isn't a convention (then I'd vote for >> coming >> up with a convention). >> I don't think it's that hard to put a proxy file in for all >> unconventional libs requiring the file following the convention to >> keep >> backwards-compatibility (e.g. strscan.rb just containing a line >> 'require >> "stringscanner.rb"'). > > Interesting, considering the fact that those files are the Ruby standard library, perhaps that is the convention. And I can guess Matz's reasoning: not all file systems are case sensitive. Also, considering the source for Ruby is in C and the tradition there is to use lowercase for .h library files. If all library files are lowercase, there is never a problem with dependencies being broken by such a trivial problem. In many programming environments this has been the very simple source of much trouble.