From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T04:41:03+09:00
Subject: Re: rubygems - did install went ok?

Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> 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 ?

It could certainly be done. But see #2 above.

Hal