From: Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T03:56:42+09:00
Subject: Re: rubygems - did install went ok?


On Mar 21, 2004, at 9:16 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:

>> I was also telling Chad and/or Rich that if gems become a standard, I
>> would like to see require_gem simply go away.
>>
>> 'require' would be modified so that it looked for a gem before 
>> anything
>> else. This would also make "require 'rubygems'" unnecessary.
>>
>>
>
> That might be a good thing to do eventually, but I think it's good to 
> keep things obviously separate while we stabilize RubyGems.  We have 
> always said that RubyGems doesn't replace the 'require' facility, but 
> it might be possible to augment that facility in the way that you 
> Jason Creighton have proposed.

The only issue here is that 'require' does not modify the $LOAD_PATH 
like require_gem does.  Changing the meaning of 'require' would 
ultimately have to be something Matz decides, not us.  Once RubyGems 
system (especially the 'runtime' aspect of it) gets stable we will then 
present it to Matz likely as an RCR and then figure out the final way 
it will integrated into the Ruby runtime (if accepted).

-rich