Re: rubygems usage as a fallback

[Matijs van Zuijlen <matijs@matijs.net>]

On 01/04/13 16:32, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no
> <mailto:tfheen@err.no>> 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