From: Matt Harrison Date: 2011-06-17T00:49:57+09:00 Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative On 16/06/2011 16:10, Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > On 16 ����, 17:29, Matt Harrison wrote: >> On 16/06/2011 13:40, Ilias Lazaridis wrote: >> >>> On 11 , 20:35, Ilias Lazaridis 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 >> >>> #existent load functionality >>> load 'alibrary.rb' >>> require 'alibrary' >> >>> locally 'lib/alter' # locally located file >>> include 'lib/alter' # the commonly known "include" ("collision" with >>> the "include" used for mixins) >>> uniload 'lib/alter' # universal load >> >>> #one more suggestion >> >>> request 'lib/alter' # like require, but uses the path relative to the >>> current file >> >> You mean like "require_relative" > > Yes of cousre, "require_relative" > >> which actually makes more sense than your suggestions? > > "require_relative(_to_this_file)" in a single word, ideally with 7 > chars You don't seem to understand that you are arguing against the descriptive nature of the "require_relevant" method name, yet in your own words above you use those two words to describe it. This in itself proves that the method name works, is sensible and suitably descriptive. As said before, this isn't going to change. If you don't like it, or your "project manager" doesn't like it, then alias it and be done. If this really was the requirement of a project manager, I'd hope he realised he's wasted the resources in having you argue this non-issue.