From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2011-06-12T19:15:29+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative

On 11 Éïýí, 22:12, Intransition <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:35 pm, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a simple Request for Comments.
>
> > Scenario:
>
> > require_relative 'lib/alter'
> > require 'alibrary'
>
> > Some project manager complains about "require_relative", and asks you
> > to find a one-word alias.
>
> > Which name would you select and for what reasons?
>
> > Requirements
> > must:
> > * one word
>
> > optional:
> > * ideally a 7 letter word
>
> Okay, I'm willing to respond to this
[...] - (changing/extending context)

But you haven't responded.

The response would be to suggest a word.

> 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.

The process would be:

* let "require" and "require_relative" work as usual (backwards
compatibility)
* define a new keyword for the new load system (e.g. "ensure")
* engineer this system from scratch
  * including a non-intrusive dynamic OO library-system which builds
on the strengths of the language (dynamic, oo, etc.)

The term "engineer" refers to the process.

But this is really *ways* out of the current topic here.

As said, just looking for a word, ideally with 7 letters.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com