[Rubygems-developers] require_gem/autorequire vs require.
rubygems at freeze.org
Wed Jun 1 23:13:17 EDT 2005
* Jim Weirich <jim at weirichhouse.org> [2005-06-01 17:17:22 -0000]:
> >>> I think I like the simple activate, or even activate_gem better.
> >> Gem.activate 'RubyInline', '= 3.2.2'
> This started off as a discussion of require_gem and how it is really doing
> two things (1) moving a gem's directories into the load path and (2)
> requiring any files marked as autorequire in the gem.
> Eric has suggested activate (or activate_gem, or Gem.activate):
> Other terms are possible. "use" (and its variations use_gem and Gem.use)
> was considered but the Perlness of the work was a bit off-putting.
> "enable" is another possibility. Since this new command is only needed
> when specifying versions, something like "lockdown_version" is also
Here is a list of possible names that I have seen (and some orthogonal
counterparts that I have added)
06) gem_activate # reminds me of "wonder twin powers...activate!"
Theory and practice are the same, in theory. -- Ryan Davis
More information about the Rubygems-developers