From: Ilias Lazaridis Date: 2011-06-19T06:45:06+09:00 Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative On 18 Ιούν, 05:40, David Masover wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2011 08:35:35 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:> On 18 Éïýí, 02:30, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > In message "Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative" > > > >     on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:40:36 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis > writes: > > [snip] > > > > |I like the word "involve" more, but as "require!" reminds clearly the > > > |original "require", it's the first choice. > > > > Unfortunately the general rule for the "!" in the method name, at > > > least in the standard library, is that it means "more dangerous than > > > the version without bang".  Since require! does not follow this rule, > > > and not worthy to change the rule.  So it's no chance to have require! > > > in the standard library. > > > I've read somewhere that it's a security risk to have the local > > directory in the library path (which "require" accesses). Thus > > "require_relative" became necessary. > > > require_relative *has* the local directory in it's "path", > > We've been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time. [...] There is no "we". You have to understand that I don't read your writings. Once and for all, Mr. Masover: Dismissed! . -- http://lazaridis.com