Lyle Johnson wrote:
> On 5/2/05, Joel VanderWerf <vjoel / path.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oh, ok. Does that mean (asking just out of idle curiosity) that you
>>cannot have gems of 1.0 and 1.2 side by side?
> 
> 
> That should be OK. If you wanted to load, say, FXRuby 1.0, you'd do
> something like this:
> 
>     require 'rubygems'
>     require 'fox'
> 
> or:
> 
>     require 'rubygems'
>     require_gem 'fxruby', '1.0.26'
> 
> ... or at least, I think that's the right syntax for the two-argument
> version of require_gem(). Similarly, to load FXRuby 1.2, you'd do
> something like this:
> 
>     require 'rubygems'
>     require 'fox12'
> 
> or:
> 
>     require 'rubygems'
>     require_gem 'fxruby', '1.2.6'
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Lyle

Oh, yeah, I forgot one of the main reasons why rubygems is so cool!