On 16/06/2011 16:10, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 16 Ιούν, 17:29, Matt Harrison<iwasinnamuk... / genestate.com>  wrote:
>> On 16/06/2011 13:40, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 , 20:35, Ilias Lazaridis<il... / lazaridis.com>    wrote:
>>>> This is a simple Request for Comments.
>>
>>>> Scenario:
>>
>>>> require_relative 'lib/alter'
>>>> require 'alibrary'
>>
>>>> Some project manager complains about "require_relative", and asks you
>>>> to find a one-word alias.
>>
>>>> Which name would you select and for what reasons?
>>
>>>> Requirements
>>>> must:
>>>> * one word
>>
>>>> optional:
>>>> * ideally a 7 letter word
>>
>>> #existent load functionality
>>> load    'alibrary.rb'
>>> require 'alibrary'
>>
>>> locally 'lib/alter' # locally located file
>>> include 'lib/alter' # the commonly known "include" ("collision" with
>>> the "include" used for mixins)
>>> uniload 'lib/alter' # universal load
>>
>>> #one more suggestion
>>
>>> request 'lib/alter' # like require, but uses the path relative to the
>>> current file
>>
>> You mean like "require_relative"
>
> Yes of cousre, "require_relative"
>
>> which actually makes more sense than your suggestions?
>
> "require_relative(_to_this_file)" in a single word, ideally with 7
> chars

You don't seem to understand that you are arguing against the 
descriptive nature of the "require_relevant" method name, yet in your 
own words above you use those two words to describe it. This in itself 
proves that the method name works, is sensible and suitably descriptive.

As said before, this isn't going to change. If you don't like it, or 
your "project manager" doesn't like it, then alias it and be done.

If this really was the requirement of a project manager, I'd hope he 
realised he's wasted the resources in having you argue this non-issue.