On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:02:37AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2004, at 10:57 AM, Mauricio FernáÏdez wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 01:22:30AM +0900, itsme213 wrote:
> >>
> >>"Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>Try:
> >>>
> >>>  require 'rubygems'
> >>>  require 'progressbar'
> >>
> >>Will this allow nested (gem and non-gem) requires within 
> >>'progressbar' to
> >>work?
> >
> >require 'foo' will always load the version from RubyGems, if you're
> >referring to that. Once you require 'rubygems', it overrides
> >Kernel.require and it is no longer possible to load the files in the
> >standard library dir, unless you use the GEM_SKIP env. variable.
> 
> Hmm, is this a good thing?  If Ruby Gems replaces the require(), 
> couldn't it be set to try the old require() when a Gem require fails?  
> Just a thought.

I didn't phrase that correctly. require 'foo' will load preferentially
the file in the gemdir (instead of the one in sitelibdir as usual).

-- 
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/