From: unexist <unexist@...>
Date: 2010-10-27T06:41:00+09:00
Subject: Re: require in instance_eval



---- On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:06:40 +0200 Jeremy Bopp  wrote ---- 

>It would seem so, but you need to take care with that since your users 
>may still expect to use require to load other extensions. 

Yep true, the point is I never encouraged users to use this, I don't even use it
myself and now I need to face them with this kind of regress in their opinion.

>Maybe your DSL can provide an alternative to require that does what you 
>want while leaving require alone. It would break compatibility with 
>some existing configurations that use require and require_relative, but 
>you could have a deprecation period where using those methods would 
>produce a warning and then fall back to the DSL's alternative.

Hm good I idea, I will think about it. Most likely I will just keep it as is, because
the DSL is that easy breaking it apart has almost no benefits.

>I wonder if the inability to use require_relative from within an eval 
>should be considered a bug. Maybe require_relative should support an 
>argument for an explicit basepath, at least as a workaround. 

Either that or a way to set the basepath directly in this cases. *eval should
be aware where the stuff came from. The current "(eval)" is probably a good
default for meaningful error messages.

With best regards

Christoph