On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Jim Freeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One way (just one, mind you) is that if require_gem really required >> the gem. So, you would have >> >> require_gem 'gem_name_here' >> >> and the gem did the requiring of the files internal. >> >> Just a thought. > > No, no no no no. > > That's what it used to do (with autoload). > > This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. (Which is why it was deprecated.)
Are you sure? I thought require_gem was the same as require, in that it required a file, but searched for it in the gem paths. I have never created a gem that one could load with require 'gem_name' because that would require my gem to have an init hook and that hook is where the real require would happen. Maybe I am getting old and forgetful, but I don't remember ever doing that for the gems that I have written. > You shouldn't be using "require_gem" anyway; you should be using "gem" > to activate particular gems/versions. > > I'd suggest that good practice would be including a dummy file that > matches your gem name, if appropriate. Yes, I have seen this with activesupport.rb and active_support.rb > That is, if I were to do this with PDF::Writer, I would make it so > that you could "require 'pdf-writer'" (since that's the name of the > gem), instead of "pdf/writer". > -- Jim Freeze _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
