From: Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T04:34:31+09:00
Subject: Re: rubygems - did install went ok?

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:16:21 +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
[snip] 
> And obviously it would be Matz's decision. All I'm saying is that
>    1. In the long run, we shouldn't have to do 'require "gems"' in
>       (virtually) every single Ruby program
>    2. The additional burden of a gem_require seems rather a nuisance
>       to me. I grant you the semantics are different from require. But
>       to me it is as if we had require_rb, require_so, require_dll
>       (instead of simply require).
> 
> Anyway, my comments were meant to be highly conditional:
>    - if/when gems stabilize
>    - when/if gems are common as dirt
>    - when/if someone suggests such an idea and Matz approves it
> 

Instead of making an RCR to change require, I think of:

Would it be possible to execute some Ruby code at that point when the Ruby
interpreter is invoked, and then add the 'require_gem' keyword ?

Is this more realistic ?

--
Simon Strandgaard