[Rubygems-developers] require_gem/autorequire vs require.

Hugh Sasse hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Thu Jun 2 09:53:39 EDT 2005


On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Jim Freeze wrote:

> Here is a list of possible names that I have seen (and some orthogonal
> counterparts that I have added)
>
> 01) require_gem +
> 02) gem_require +
> 03) select_gem +++
> 04) gem_select +++
> 05) activate_gem
> 06) gem_activate  # reminds me of "wonder twin powers...activate!"
> 07) use_gem
> 08) gem_use
> 09) enable_gem ++
> 10) gem_enable ++
> 11) Gem.require
> 12) Gem.select
> 13) Gem.activate
> 14) Gem.use
> 15) Gem.enable
> 16) activate
> 17) lockdown_version
> 18) set_version
> 19) add_gem
> 20) queue_gem
   21) cue_gem (perhaps?)
> 99)
> set_the_load_path_for_a_gem_with_said_version_so_it_will_require_the_correct_version_automatically
(A catchy little number that didn't make it onto "Ummagumma")

I think I prefer the ones that integrate the whole gem business into
ruby, without having to specify Gem::something or Gem.sumeoting.

Any point in setting up a vote page for this, so we can collect
opinions?

         Hugh


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list