On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 10:35  AM, Marko Schulz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:09:19PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
>> I have never understood this: why doesn't Ruby store the cannonical
>> (fully expanded) path name; that would eliminate this kind of problem.
>
> I always thought this isn't done, so the programmer isn't deluded a
> false sense of security: There isn't always _the_ cannonical
> path. Think of filesystems that ignore the case in filenames. (Not to
> mention (symbolic and hard) links or alias names (single~1.rb)

I see the argument, but I don't really like it.  One thing I like about 
Java (which seems more OO than Ruby) is that when you import something, 
what you're specifying is classes rather than files.  I like this idea 
because the classes are what you really care about anyhow.

Another problem which is starting to pop up is versioning.  In Perl you 
can require that what you're using has a certain version number.  This 
is a good "sanity check" when you're using libraries which may 
fluctuate (like the CGI one for example).

Is it too late to come up with an alternative to 'require'?

Ben