On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:16:01 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim / weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

I'm with you on this one (along with the fermenting).  require_gem
also modifies the load path.

> 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.
> 

I kind of like this approach regardless of versioning.  

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

Same here.  Also, If you don't have libraries of your own, a great
(small) way to contribute to other people's projects is to create gems
for them and contribute them back.

I'm going to be out of town for a couple of weeks starting tonight, so
if you don't hear from me, it's not because I'm blowing you off. :)

Chad