0[`

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Hiroshi Nakamura <nakahiro / gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>



-- 
名无の小人