Hi,

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 16:21, Yehuda Katz <wycats / gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this also mean that we will not enhance const_missing to support nested
> modules?

No, it doesn't.  I explained your request at #2740 first, and we
discussed the way to solve it (no conclusion yet.)  I'll update #2740
later.

> I think it is still possible to make require itself threadsafe, if we use a
> single lock for requires, as Charlie Nutter has previously proposed.

I don't know that single lock solution is acceptable, because the
cross-require issue is caused by developer's error we think, and
should be easily avoidable (Just don't do!)  It would be too big
restriction to save this error.

In contrast to it, autoload can cause unintentional cross-require.  So
I talked to Matz about #2740.

> Honestly, if we improve const_missing and make `require` capable of being
> threadsafe, it will be easy to implement autoload in terms of those
> primitives.

I explained exactly along the same line, not sure Matz agreed or not
though.  Let's keep discussing in #2740.