Re: Bug#293055: Progress with rails?

[Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>]

* Marcelo E. Magallon [Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:23:08 -0600]:
>  care about Ruby, or for that matter, programming.  My concern wrt to
>  gems in general is that code that reads like this:

>     require 'rubygems'
>     require_gem 'mygem'

>  in a "Debianized gem", like the one you propose, becomes:

>     require 'mymodule'

>  That's what I meant by 'not source level compatible'.  Yes, I know
>  about this:

>  begin
>     require 'foo'
>  rescue LoadError
>     require 'rubygems'
>     require_gem 'bar', '>= 1'
>  end

  Uhm, is 'require_gem' still the most common method? I mean, I had the
  (perhaps wrong) impression that with the 'require hack' in RubyGems 0.8
  people would just write:

    require 'rubygems'
    require 'somegem'

  (Yes, that does not provide a mean to impose a version constraint.)

>  Even if this code is very Ruby-like, _it_ _is_ _not_ what the
>  (rubygems) documentation says you should do.

  Does the rubygems docs advise to use 'require_gem' in all cases?


  P.S.: I lack a solid knowledge about this matters.

-- 
Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..."
                -- Isaac Asimov