From: serialhex <serialhex@...>
Date: 2011-05-27T12:26:00+09:00
Subject: Re: require in 1.9.2 and 1.9.1

--0016365ee6b6960fbf04a4397ea8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

one method to require them all:
require_relative

ok, maybe not 'all' but it will solve your problem, as long as you're using
1.9.  and if you want to be *sure* it will work you can do something like:

if RUBY_VERSION < '1.9'
  Kernel.class_eval do
    def require_relative str
      require './' + str
    end
  end
end

in your top level lib that gets called first & then you can have all the
require_relative's you want :D

require_relative 'foo'
require_relative 'bar/bak'
require_relative 'animals/magical/fire_breathing_llamas'
# and so on...

have fun!!
hex

p.s. the method i made above is probably seriously cheating & may have some
flaws that one more knowledgeable than i could point out, but ATM it should
work well enough.




On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Ill Everbe <illeverbe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > #i have a file 'user.rb' in the current directory. if i ...
> >
> > require "user"
> >
> > #i get this messege (1.9.2 in xp and in windows 7)
> >
> > ##<internal:lib/rubygems/custom_require>:29:in `require': no such file
> > to
> > ##load -- user_input (LoadError)
> > ##  from <internal:lib/rubygems/custom_require>:29:in `require'
> >
> > ##this worked fine in 1.9.1 in xp. and when i
> >
> > puts $:
> >
> > #in 1.9.1 the last load path is '.', but '.' is not in load path for
> > #1.9.2
> > #works fine if i
> >
> > require_relative 'user'
> >
> > #or if i
> >
> > load 'user.rb'
> >
> > #a bug or a reason for this behavior?  i used the installer. on xp and
> > on #windows 7
> >
> > --
> > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> >
> >
> It's intentional, because "." is relative. So your script would work if you
> invoke it from the same dir on 1.9.1, but would break if you invoke it from
> the parent dir, because now it is looking in the parent dir for "user"
> rather than the dir of the file. So most code that does require statements
> like that has a bug there.
>
>
>
> IDK what everyone else does, but for me, if its a bigger project, I add the
> project root dir to the load path so that require("user") would then work
> if
> user.rb is in the root dir of the project.
>
> For smaller projects, like 1 or 2 files, I just do require("#{File.dirname
> __FILE__}/user").
>
> In library code (ie a gem you are writing), I don't think you are supposed
> to alter the load path as part of the lib at all, rather do that in your
> test code or in your binary, or just rely on rubygems to do it for you.
> Then
> within the library, you can require things relative to the lib directory of
> your project, even though the lib itself doesn't alter the path.
>
>
>
> I'd be interested to know whether everyone else does it like this also, or
> if you guys have discovered some useful pattern I don't know about.
>



-- 

> > Other than the fact Linux has a cool name, could someone explain why I
> > should use Linux over BSD?
>
> No.  That's it.  The cool name, that is.  We worked very hard on
> creating a name that would appeal to the majority of people, and it
> certainly paid off: thousands of people are using linux just to be able
> to say "OS/2? Hah.  I've got Linux.  What a cool name".  386BSD made the
> mistake of putting a lot of numbers and weird abbreviations into the
> name, and is scaring away a lot of people just because it sounds too
> technical.
	-- Linus Torvalds' follow-up to a question about Linux

--0016365ee6b6960fbf04a4397ea8--