Its Me wrote:
> I can see some problems with how 'require' works (e.g. how do I refer to a
> relative path from current working directory?), and recall seeing some
> postings to fix it. A quick search did not uncover it. Any pointers?

Normally, '.' is on the require path, $:. But that does not help if you 
want to require relative to the current file being parsed by ruby, 
rather than the current dir. There has been some discussion of this. 
Search the ruby-talk archives for require_local.

>>Btw, hope you like foxtails...
> 
> 
> Clean, simple, ... undocumented :-) Seriously, I love it.

Yeah, gotta write docs...

> I'd also vote for your Observer to go into the standard Ruby libs, but I
> don't know how that works.

Thanks, but I don't think it's widely used. One problem is that it 
defines a module called Observable, and there is a standard library, 
observer.rb, that also defines an module called Observable. I should 
probably rename my module to ObservableAttribute, which is more precise, 
anyway. Another problem is that overusing it can lead to code that is 
very hard to debug (like a "come from" statement). It seems to work 
nicely for wiring up GUI's, though.