From: Ted Han Date: 2011-06-19T09:18:28+09:00 Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative --002354010a9a96705304a6058e5b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1) def rr(path); require_relative path; end 2) not having this thread in my inbox anymore. 3) ???? 4) Profit!!!! Sorry, letting my inner "libertarian DHH do-what-the-fuck-you-want-and-leave-everyone-else-alone" get the better of my inner "we are nice because Matz is nice". On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote= : > On 18 =CE=99=CE=BF=CF=8D=CE=BD, 05:40, David Masover = wrote: > > On Friday, June 17, 2011 08:35:35 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:> On 18 =C3= =89=C3=AF=C3=BD=C3=AD, > 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 tha= n > > > > the version without bang". Since require! does not follow this rul= e, > > > > 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 > > --002354010a9a96705304a6058e5b--