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.
That's a gem related question, IMHO, but I like that concept best, to
be honest.
require 'libxml'
require 'xml'
I think LibXML::XML::* is rather redundant and a waste of keystrokes,
however, and that it should be LibXML::* and XML::*. $0.02. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
