From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2009-10-14T23:51:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Hey you! Stop using relative requires!

2009/10/14 Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@anferny.me.uk>:
> Louis-Philippe wrote:
>> for further clarification read:
>> http://gist.github.com/54177
>>
>> <http://gist.github.com/54177>and
>>
>> http://www.untilnil.com/2009/02/25/require-principle_of_least_surprise
>>
>> <http://www.untilnil.com/2009/02/25/require-principle_of_least_surprise>
>>
>> 2009/10/14 Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@anferny.me.uk>
>>
> Thanks for the links. They are interesting.
>
> Does make the require statements a wee bit wacky though, do people
> really use
>
> require File.join( File.dirname( File.expand_path(__FILE__)), 'lib',
> 'helpers', 'precious')
>
> rather than
>
> require 'lib/helpers/precious'

I believe there is a mistake: the second require should read

    # file /mygem/lib/helpers.rb
    require File.join( File.dirname( File.expand_path(__FILE__)),
'helpers', 'precious')

i.e. the "lib" is superfluous since helpers.rb does reside in lib already.

Whether people use that much I can't say.  I believe usually require
'helpers/precious' is safe because if the load path is such that the
initial helpers.rb is found then it will also find the correct
precious.rb with the relative path.  I do believe though that the
absolute path is more robust especially when using an explicit path to
require the library root file.

Kind regards

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/