On 6 Jul 2010, at 11:38, Run Paint Run Run wrote:

> Issue #3140 has been updated by Run Paint Run Run.
>=20
>=20
>> I don't agree, this is forcing people to add require 'rubygems' to =
their code,
>> which is unacceptable as well. Introducing broken semantics into the =
core
>> language will add support load to rubygems, bundler, debian, rails, =
and a
>> bunch of other places.=20
>=20
> We're talking at cross purposes. Prior to 1.9, people already had to =
add `require 'rubygems'` to their code before requiring a gem. =
Therefore, given that 1.9.2 will be the first viable 1.9 release, the =
compulsion is precisely the same as before: on 1.8 and 1.9.2 users will =
be "forced" to `require 'rubygems'` before loading a gem under =
traditional semantics. Nothing has changed in this regard.

But users are no longer forced to require rubygems, instead they will =
hit bugs, and then, due to the nature of most users, they will add those =
lines to their code, when in reality, it would be better if they use =
$RUBYOPT or the like. This means that pain is added to their workflow, =
that is all. It also means (and I'll put good money on this) that a lot =
of people will backlash and do exactly as you suggest, and actually add =
`require 'rubygems'` to their runtime code, which is a bad practice.

>> There is more than can be done in this direction... [deletia]
>=20
> Which is also what I said. Nobody is suggesting that the current patch =
is anything approaching ideal. If your proposal meets the myriad =
requirements, then it will indeed be a welcome replacement.

Can someone summarise those requirements so I can make sure I don't miss =
any?=