From quixoticsycophant at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 17:42:47 2010 From: quixoticsycophant at gmail.com (James M. Lawrence) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:42:47 -0500 Subject: [Rake-devel] [feature request] Pull in DSL with require 'rake/dsl' Message-ID: <996afcbc1001111442x713dff73kd9782ddb8b4480bb@mail.gmail.com> With the new DSL separation, two lines are needed to get the top-level DSL inside a regular ruby program, require 'rake' include Rake::DSL I suggest making this equivalent to require 'rake/dsl' This would not affect the present behavior of require 'rake'. I am essentially requesting that you follow a convention which is convenient and already in use (at least by me, e.g. pure/dsl, cond/dsl). It's also my last chance to speak up before the existing dsl.rb makes the feature backward-incompatible. There are also other precedents for require 'project/feature' to produce side effects needed by 'feature', for example spec/autorun and minitest/autorun. See pull request on github. P.S. I was accepted to the Rake group on pivotal but I didn't see how to create a feature request (or to do anything other than export CSV). From jim.weirich at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 18:25:50 2010 From: jim.weirich at gmail.com (Jim Weirich) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:25:50 -0500 Subject: [Rake-devel] [feature request] Pull in DSL with require 'rake/dsl' In-Reply-To: <996afcbc1001111442x713dff73kd9782ddb8b4480bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <996afcbc1001111442x713dff73kd9782ddb8b4480bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <04A2B0E8-A003-48C0-A9AB-D780C2C9B86C@gmail.com> On Jan 11, 2010, at 5:42 PM, James M. Lawrence wrote: > With the new DSL separation, two lines are needed to get the top-level > DSL inside a regular ruby program, > > require 'rake' > include Rake::DSL > > I suggest making this equivalent to > > require 'rake/dsl' > > This would not affect the present behavior of require 'rake'. I have no issue with the basics of this request. We would have to move the guts of the DSL module to a different file (since rake itself requires 'rake/dsl', this would put the DSL commands back at top level). > P.S. I was accepted to the Rake group on pivotal but I didn't see how > to create a feature request (or to do anything other than export CSV). By default, I add all tracker requests as viewers. The other choice, "member", allows complete editing of all the story details. I would really like a "request new feature/report bug" role, but pivotal doesn't seem to support that. -- -- Jim Weirich -- jim.weirich at gmail.com From quixoticsycophant at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 18:46:34 2010 From: quixoticsycophant at gmail.com (James M. Lawrence) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:46:34 -0500 Subject: [Rake-devel] [feature request] Pull in DSL with require 'rake/dsl' In-Reply-To: <04A2B0E8-A003-48C0-A9AB-D780C2C9B86C@gmail.com> References: <996afcbc1001111442x713dff73kd9782ddb8b4480bb@mail.gmail.com> <04A2B0E8-A003-48C0-A9AB-D780C2C9B86C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <996afcbc1001111546l4ac4afe7m947dd499d0f82a20@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Jim Weirich wrote: > > I have no issue with the basics of this request. ?We would have to move the > guts of the DSL module to a different file (since rake itself requires > 'rake/dsl', this would put the DSL commands back at top level). Yes, that's in the pull request.