David Vallner wrote:

> Err. Mind the terms, including a module in Ruby is something VERY  
> different from requiring a library.

My mix in terminology is a reflection of my origins.  Perl uses Modules.

> Heavy spoonfeeding follows.
> 
> That said, a large majority of libraries are named according to the  
> modules / classes defined in them. E.g.: A class named 
> Toys::Fluffy::Teddy  will be very probably defined in a file called 
> "toys/fluffy/teddy.rb"  relative to somewhere on your Ruby library path.

I like this idea.  Obviously because it's so very perl-ish.
But it also makes sense.

> However, that is only a convention, and is not enforced. Some 
> libraries,  like "mathn", don't define any new modules or classes, but 
> instead (ab)use  the metaprogramming and reflective capacities of Ruby 
> and modify existing  modules / classes by defining new methods or 
> changing the behaviour of  existing ones.

This should be discouraged or at least a consistent alternative.  In any 
event, if it were possible to identify methods that require more than 
the stdlib or core....

> Anyways, if you're still confused about something - or more confused 
> than  before - feel free to bug.

Not so much anymore, just more cautious.
I like what I've seen so far but my lack of familiarity makes everything 
seem so shockingly bizarre at times.  I have to check myself to make sure.

Thanks.  This has been a lesson.