A daydream of mine is a "super-require" that if the file was not found, the
loader would go to a central place on the web and load it (sort of like
marimba).  I don't tend to use other people's modules just because I'm too
lazy to find and install them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Alan Black" <dblack / candle.superlink.net>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:30357] snippet exchange (was: Re: Re: chomp for arrays?)


> Hello --
>
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Massimiliano Mirra wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 04:53:14AM +0900, Adam Spitz wrote:
> >
> > > I want to see a big collection of all the methods that people have
> > > added to the built-in Ruby classes. I want to look over them and
> > > take the ones that look cool and play with them myself and improve
> > > them if I can.
> >
> > Well, at least your snippet has earned a one way ticket to *my*
> > xenumerable.rb.  each_send is a great idea.
> >
> > Which leads me to: this is a context where size does *not* matter.
> > Sometimes after banging my head against the wall for an hour to solve
> > a problem, I come up with a one- or two-liner that solves it elegantly
> > and go ``Cool!''.
> >
> > Then I think that it would be nice to share it with others, yet the
> > RAA is no place for one-liners and the list doesn't seem appropriate
> > for snippets unless requested (for one thing, more people could easily
> > post very similar snippets in time).  This is not limited to
> > x[object].rb's but also regards idioms and solutions not pertaining to
> > builtin classes extension.
>
> See [ruby-talk:14556] for a kind of cry-from-the-deep about this from
> last May.  I continue to think that we're underutilizing what we've
> got.  That may be true in other language communities too -- but Ruby
> lends itself to... well, like I said, see 14556 :-)
>
> > Does anyone see such a repository of ``molecules'' as possible?  It
> > looks like it sits in the same domain of RubyGems, RAA.succ etc.,
> > i.e. a system to store and classify some things against various
> > parameters and allow people to post, get and update such elements.
>
> I definitely see it as possible, especially if you're talking about
> adding methods rather than changing methods.  Actually I was aiming
> for both in Ruby Behaviors (see [ruby-talk:18803], also my talk on
> http://www.chadfowler.com/rubyconf.html), which may be why that
> project is still resting comfortably in a pre-alpha-ish stage.  (Aside
> to David Simmons: finished selector namespaces for Ruby yet? :-)
>
> I've talked to Ryan "Ruby Gems" L. quite a bit about the relation
> between Ruby Gems and Ruby Behaviors (the latter being not necessarily
> identical to what you're envisioning, but relevant enough for
> comparison), and our feeling (Ryan? yes? :-) has always been that
> something like a Behaviors package, or cluster of small additions to
> Ruby, could itself be packaged as a Gem.  So it wouldn't have to be a
> different or parallel distribution system -- it could just essentially
> be 'require'd at runtime like any Gem/library/etc.  Then behind the
> scenes, or before the fact, so to speak, it could all have been
> organized and cleared for namespace conflicts and so on prior to
> becoming a Gem.
>
> I have to admit, though, I wouldn't mind seeing more code-sharing at
> the snippet level, with some at least serviceable management of
> namespace conflicts, even before all this packaging stuff is sorted
> out.
>
>
> David
>
> --
> David Alan Black
> home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
> work: blackdav / shu.edu
> Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
>