[Rubygems-developers] New Gem format?
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Wed Jul 28 07:05:18 EDT 2004
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 8:52:40 PM, Mauricio wrote:
> As a side note, concerning the latter: it should be made clear that
> require 'rubygems'
> require_gem "foo"
> offers no advantage vs
> require 'foo'
> now that stubs are created by default.
> I've never found a 'qualified' (e.g. require_gem 'foo', ">1.0")
> require_gem in the wild, which is the only case where it makes sense.
It's early days yet, my friend! I don't think there would be too many
require_gem's in the wild at all, would there?
More information about the Rubygems-developers