James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:
> 
>> Depending on the language require mechanism to work as they always  have
>> is not wrong, changing it mid-stream is.
> 
> 
> Luckily, you can stop Ruby from ever evolving on your box again, today.
> 
> Bless Ruby 1.8.3 as the final version of Ruby, as far as you're  
> concerned, and you have implemented iron-clad protection for the  
> current require behavior than none of us can rob you of.  This is  
> probably a really good move for you too, since I suspect the Ruby 2.0  
> specification must be very alarming to you.
> 
> I think many of the rest of us consider a packaging system a critical  
> language feature, past due.  So don't fault us for moving forward and  
> we won't fault you for standing still.

Then why is the current discussion mostly about a half-assed standard
library addition rather than a language feature?

Make Gems the *only* way to #require anything or leave it out.

> James Edward Gray II

E
-- 
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }