From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2004-02-12T23:00:17+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary: 22688-22826

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:36:03AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |For the record, I really like both of these ideas; they would completely
> |eliminate the use I have for requirelocal/loadlocal in RubyTreasures.
> 
> Any name suggestion?

Well obviously I've been using "requirelocal" to mean "require a file
with a path relative to the currently executing file".  I have a lot of
code that uses that method, but I've never liked the name.

I do like the "require relative" idea proposed in [ruby-talk:92655].

Whatever method name is used, IMO it should indicate that the operation
is similar in function to a require (so "import" and "include" are
out -- though "include" is out for other reasons).

Paul