[Rubygems-developers] require_gem/autorequire vs require.

Bill Guindon agorilla at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 10:04:14 EDT 2005


On 6/2/05, Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Funny you should use that word, as Gem.specify was running through my mind.
 
> Any point in setting up a vote page for this, so we can collect
> opinions?
> 
>          Hugh
> _______________________________________________
> Rubygems-developers mailing list
> Rubygems-developers at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
> 


-- 
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list