RCR 221: Automatic completion of Namespace
Submitted by rolo (Tue Feb 24 12:02:11 UTC 2004)
Abstract
There is a need to oraganize libraries with depths more 1. This tree can become quite deep. (depth > 3). To always write a fully qualified name is laborious task.
Problem
Proposal
Allow ruby require statement to resolve namespaces.
Analysis
The initial responses from others came up with why include is insufficient. Though I do not know Ruby well, I thought that the implementators would be sensible and would not have 2 words for same thing. But I have started to work more, I see that namespace resolution using include is more like VB's <I>with</I> keyword. What I feel we should have something like Java's <I>import</I>. You can have multiple imports whereas a include removes any include done previously as far as namespace is considered.
more as I find more...
Implementation
The implementors (i.e., Matz) do not have two words for the same thing. require is not the same as include (which is what I assume you mean), nor is load the same as require, nor is load the same as include. I don't see any real rationale for this change here -- in fact, in all honesty I don't understand what the requested change actually is. (I don't know VB or Java so I can't comment on those; my puzzlement is based on the Ruby context.)
-- David Black
|
| Strongly opposed |
1 |
| Opposed |
0 |
| Neutral |
0 |
| In favor |
0 |
| Strongly advocate |
0 |
|
This RCR supersedes RCR 220.
RCRchive copyright © David Alan Black, 2003-2005.
Powered by .
The implementors (i.e., Matz) do not have two words for the same thing. require is not the same as include (which is what I assume you mean), nor is load the same as require, nor is load the same as include. I don't see any real rationale for this change here -- in fact, in all honesty I don't understand what the requested change actually is. (I don't know VB or Java so I can't comment on those; my puzzlement is based on the Ruby context.)
-- David Black