On Jul 16, 7:21 pm, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One can always do the include.
>
> Brevity should, generally speaking, always win.
>
> > But I
> > understand that it can be a pain to have to type 'include LibXML' when
> > you want it at the toplevel. That's why I suggested a second require
> > 'libxml/xml' which seems fitting since that is what you are asking for
> > too, LibXML::XML.
>
> I missed the semantic difference here, but get it now.
>
> require 'libxml' # LibXML::XML::*
> require 'libxml/xml' # XML::*
>
> That concept works for me... though I'd invert it.
>
> require 'libxml' # XML::*
> require 'ilbxml/app' # LibXML::XML::*
>
> Where 'libxml.rb' does the include, and libxml/app ('gem', or
> whatever), does not. ??
It's very unintuitive :(
Is the issue backward compatibility? If so, I point out that we still
support the original naming, which includes LibXML, for backward
compatibility:
require 'xml/libxml'
While I don't think we ought to support this backward compatibility
indefinitely, might it not suffice until we make the libxml-ruby =>
libxml package name transition?
If on the other hand, it is not backward compatibility, but rather the
lack of brevity, then consider this alternative.Instead of
require 'libxml/xml'
as I have suggested, what about
require 'xml'
which makes sense, since that is in effect the end result, ie. XML
loaded at the toplevel namespace.
T.
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
