From: "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@...>
Date: 2011-06-22T03:55:10+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative

2011/6/20 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>:
>> False.
> [...] - (not readed, 'cause it's anyway biased babbling)

Sorry??? the given argument is really GOOD:


False.

require can also load from absolute paths -- that is, require_relative can be
implemented in terms of __FILE__ and require.

require_relative can also load from absolute paths, so on that score, they are
even.

If you do not specify an absolute path, require_relative will only attempt to
resolve things relative to the current file. By contrast, require will attempt
to resolve things relative to an arbitrary number of paths in $: -- which, for
that matter, can be configured by the caller.

If anything, require_relative is "safer" than require. However, neither of
them is truly "dangerous" now that '.' is no longer in the default load path.
When it was, we might've considered require to be actually dangerous, while
require_relative is not.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>