On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 03:18:04 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim / weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> 
> Mauricio FernŠŌdez said:
> 
> >> 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).
> 
> Actually, this isn't accurate either.
> 
> Gems will only prefer the gem based file if the gem containing that file
> has been activated.
> 
> Things that will activate a gem:
> 
> * an explicit require_gem
> * requiring of a file not found in the current load path, but
>   can be found in a gem.
> 
> Once activated, files from the activated gem will be preferred.  However,
> files from unactivated gems will continue to be preferred from the
> existing load path.

Wow. That's delightfully polite. I like it!