From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2012-06-14T03:04:59+09:00
Subject: Re: require_relative? why didn't we "relative do"

------=_Part_169_15120054.1339610696776
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_170_15048078.1339610696776"

------=_Part_170_15048078.1339610696776
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Jams wrote:
>
>
> you might have better luck emailing ruby-core if you're interested in this 
> an can't work it out. 
>
> Have you looked through the ruby-lang archives? The first hit I found for 
> require_relative was this: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/148978 which 
> seems to indicate there wasn't much discussion about the functionality. 
> What's cool is that it also shows that require_relative was originally ruby 
> code, not C. 
>
> Assuming that it was rewritten in C (I haven't checked), I imagine it was 
> to ensure performance. 1.9 had a lot of performance improvements over 1.8. 
>

Unfortunately I learned a few months ago that #require_relative has not 
been optimized, so it is hardly any better for being written in C. However, 
I am hopeful that one day someone will take the time to optimize it as it 
is ripe for such treatment and then it could readily help boost load speeds.


------=_Part_170_15048078.1339610696776
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<br><br>On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Jams wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>you might have better luck emailing ruby-core if you're interested in this an can't work it out.
<br>
<br>Have you looked through the ruby-lang archives? The first hit I found for require_relative was this: <a href="http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/148978" target="_blank">http://www.ruby-forum.com/<wbr>topic/148978</a> which seems to indicate there wasn't much discussion about the functionality. What's cool is that it also shows that require_relative was originally ruby code, not C. 
<br>
<br>Assuming that it was rewritten in C (I haven't checked), I imagine it was to ensure performance. 1.9 had a lot of performance improvements over 1.8.
<br></blockquote><div><br>Unfortunately I learned a few months ago that #require_relative has not been optimized, so it is hardly any better for being written in C. However, I am hopeful that one day someone will take the time to optimize it as it is ripe for such treatment and then it could readily help boost load speeds.<br></div><br>
------=_Part_170_15048078.1339610696776--

------=_Part_169_15120054.1339610696776--