On 16 ον, 00:27, David Masover <ni... / slaphack.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 02:55:31 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
> > On 15 ïýí, 22:26, Florian Gilcher <f... / andersground.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> > > > require_relative 'lib/alter'
> > > > require './lib/alter'
>
> > > > To my understanding, both should do the same thing.
>
> > > > Is this right?
>
> > > No, the first is relative to the file, the second is relative to
> > > "Dir.pwd", the process working directory.
>
> > I understand.
>
> > Thus the first works for the main file, *and* for included files which
> > can use again require_relative.
>
> > The second works only for the main file (usually executed from it's
> > location).
>
> Not really, no.
>
> More like, the first works wherever I'd normally be hacking around with
> __FILE__ to get a decent require path.
>
> The second doesn't work at all, unless it's actually what you intend. For
> instance, if I add a ruby script to my PATH as a command, and then run it,
> what directory I happen to be in when I run it is what determines what the
> second is relative to.
>
> Even on Windows, the working directory isn't always where the main file is.

Yes, you're right.

I forgot those cases.

What is sure for me now is:

I need the functionality that "require_relative" provides.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com