From: Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@...>
Date: 2011-06-12T04:51:52+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This idea of course presents backward compatibility issues, but it is
> a way to do it that actually improves the robustness and efficiency of
> the load system.

If it breaks backwards compatibility, it's neither effective nor
robust, I'd say.

Especially since your idea introduces a *lot* of mental overhead on my part:

Do I want a local or a global file? What's the syntax for a global
require, again? And it's almost, but not entirely, completely unlike
accessing nested constants (Module::Class vs ::file).

And running non "::require"-aware code leads to fun bugs and security
issues (imagine a "ostruct" file in the load path that wipes your
filesystem. The joys...).

On the flip side, require and require_relative make it completely
clear that I load either globally or in relation to my source files
*without* having to remember what a particular bit of line noise
means.

If the issue is that you have to type so much more, set up a macro in
your favourite editor. Or if you happen to use AutoHotKey:
::r#::require
::rr#::require_relative

(using the # to avoid situations where you want to type literal "r" and "rr"s)

You can then tell your project manager to do some actual work, instead
of worrying about 8 bytes worth of storage.

-- 
Phillip Gawlowski

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
               -- Leibnitz