Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> I'd like to make some comments on the use of 'require' vs 'require_gem' in
> general.
[...]
> I'm not going to argue that it's _never_ a hassle, but in many contexts,
> using 'require_gem' is just fine.

I would like to add some of my own (still fermenting) thought on 
require_gem.

There is a fundamental difference between require and require_gem. 
Require_gem can do version specs and require does not.

Since I don't want my version dependencies spread all over my project, I 
would probably collect all the require_gem's in a single location (or a 
small, easily identifiable, set of of locations).  Everywhere else in 
the project, I would just use normal requires.  This allows me to go to 
one place to tweak the versions of the external gems I am using.  If 
versioning becomes important, then conventions like this will likely 
become popular.

> P.S.  Keep those gems coming!  If you are a project author and would like
> help creating and releasing a gem, email me.  Remember that releasing a
> gem file on RubyForge means it automatically becomes available via remote
> install, offering a tremendous convenience to the Ruby community.  Look at
> http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems to see what's available already.
> 
> P.P.S.  If you are an enthusiatic user of a particular project, or your
> project depends on it, and it's not available as a gem, then you can offer
> to help its author release it as a gem.  A lot of people will benefit from
> this small effort.

I'm willing to help potential Gem authors as well.  I'm particularly 
interested in helping folks get rake working with their Gem project.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich    jim / weirichhouse.org     http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)