On 01/04/13 16:32, Jordon Bedwell wrote: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > require "rubygems" is a redundant task unless this library is being > built > > for >1.9.3 and even if people don't consider it expensive (and it's not > > expensive in the grand scheme of things) it's just not needed unless you > > are on old-ruby. > > In the code sample Praveen posted, it's only require-d if we get a > loaderror for the packaged version, hence dead code > > > It's not exactly dead code since it still has a cost considering it's wrapped > inside a closure.
That doesn't look like a closure to me. OTOH, I think upstream should remove it. -- Matijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
