Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:21551] [Feature #1046] request: ability to run without specifying .rb"
    on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:42:16 +0900, Roger Pack <redmine / ruby-lang.org> writes:

|Speaking out loud, is there a reason why require does not require .rb suffix, and load does?
|Thanks!

require is to load "libraries", where load is to load "scripts".  The
target of the load method might be configuration files, or anything
else from the specified path, but at least they are all Ruby scripts.
On the other hand, the require method loads Ruby libraries or dynamic
loading C implemented libraries reside in the load path.  So it needs
file path extension to distinguish which kind of library to read.

And could you please tell me why you felt it's be nice to be able to
omit extension [on Windows]?  The ruby command is invoked from command
line, which always shows extensions, unlike from Explorer.

							matz.