[Rubygems-developers] require_gem/autorequire vs require.

Hugh Sasse hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Wed Jun 1 09:50:49 EDT 2005


On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, 11:00:40 PM, Jim wrote:
>
>> I think I like the simple activate, or even activate_gem better.
>
>>     activate_gem 'RubyInline', '= 3.2.2'
>>     require 'inline'
>
> The only difference is the name:
>
>      Gem.activate 'RubyInline', '= 3.2.2'
>      require 'inline'
>
> Not sure what your point is about "starting a new app".  But like I
> said, the only difference is the name.
>
> Gavin

What puzzles me is the name.  What is the activate doing?  To me,
you can only activate something if you have it but here it is being
activated before require'd.  So why is it activate rather than
obtain, require, acquire, or some such name?

I seem to have only seem the end of this discussion, not the bit
where its operation was defined.

         Hugh


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list