On Saturday, June 18, 2011 04:45:06 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 18 Ϧ, 05:40, David Masover <ni... / slaphack.com>wrote:
> > 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.

Demonstrably false. Remember this?

On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 04:40:50 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 16 Ϧ, 00:27, David Masover <ni... / slaphack.com>wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 02:55:31 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> > > On 15 , 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.

So while you've found me to be helpful as recently as Wednesday, you also seem 
to have trouble remembering a distinction I made on Wednesday.

I'd say something like "The plot thickens," but honestly, who didn't see this 
coming?