Thomas Sawyer wrote:
> James Edward Gray II wrote:
> 
>> I'm pretty sure we can come up with non-Rails applications scenarios
>> where they don't apply.  I vote we just reject the dogma and focus on
>> the problems it can cause.
>>
>> I'm not saying you're wrong about the issue.  I'm just saying that
>> telling us to never do something, is just a turn off.
> 
> Ok. But I think maybe you are missing my point. I'm not pushing a dogma. 
> I am making an emphasis: There is no reason to use relative loading at 
> all in those cases. To re-phase... I'm not telling you not to do it. I 
> am telling you there is absolutely no need for you to do it.
> 
> I'm very much doubt there are any outlay cases. But if there are, I'd be 
> more than ready to amend these "rules".
> 
> Also, let me just note that I actually like relative loading, b/c I like 
> folder based packaging (I'm a fan of GoboLinux for instance). But 
> without the major distro's embrace it's not something that can be 
> completely relied upon (hence the bin/ example). If it were, I think 
> Ruby would have better support for it too. I mean really, doesn't
> 

What would you suggest in the case of multiple versions of a module for 
testing purposes?  If everything is "hard coded" to go to a specific 
directory than all versions would use the same code and defeat the 
purpose of having the different versions.

>   $LOAD_PATH.unshift(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + 
> "/../lib"))
> 
> give off just a little code smell? ;)