On 18 Ϧ, 05:40, David Masover <ni... / slaphack.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 08:35:35 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:> On 18 , 02:30, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m... / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > In message "Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative"
>
> > >   on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:40:36 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il... / lazaridis.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > |I like the word "involve" more, but as "require!" reminds clearly the
> > > |original "require", it's the first choice.
>
> > > Unfortunately the general rule for the "!" in the method name, at
> > > least in the standard library, is that it means "more dangerous than
> > > the version without bang". Since require! does not follow this rule,
> > > and not worthy to change the rule. So it's no chance to have require!
> > > in the standard library.
>
> > I've read somewhere that it's a security risk to have the local
> > directory in the library path (which "require" accesses). Thus
> > "require_relative" became necessary.
>
> > require_relative *has* the local directory in it's "path",
>
> We've been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time.
[...]

There is no "we".

You have to understand that I don't read your writings.

Once and for all, Mr. Masover:

Dismissed!

.

--
http://lazaridis.com