Eric Hodel wrote:
> I would like to do (b), but (a) is acceptable to me.  I think it is 
> possible to remove most of the files RubyGems loads with require 
> 'rubygems' using caching, which would be an easier alternative to (c), 
> however this would be probably not be much easier.

My only concern with (b) is that it changes the semantics of require 
across the board to include additional paths and searching logic out of 
the box. Those changes seem like something that most would be more 
comfortable opting into rather than having always present, especially 
since non-RubyGems require semantics are well understood.

- Charlie