[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

RubyGems New gem() Method

James Gray

2/27/2007 10:52:00 PM

Am I understanding right that the new gem() does not actually perform
the require? It just sets up version handling, right?

Does this work for something like the soap4r gem? You can't require
that gem normally, because the standard library will take
precedence. In the past, require_gem() got around this but I'm
thinking we lost that trick.

Am I missing something?

James Edward Gray II
8 Answers

Eric Hodel

2/27/2007 11:15:00 PM

0

On Feb 27, 2007, at 14:52, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> Am I understanding right that the new gem() does not actually
> perform the require? It just sets up version handling, right?

Kernel#gem adds the gem's require_paths to $:.

> Does this work for something like the soap4r gem? You can't
> require that gem normally, because the standard library will take
> precedence. In the past, require_gem() got around this but I'm
> thinking we lost that trick.

No, #gem doesn't do autorequire. That's the only difference.

> Am I missing something?

Yes. Use #gem.

James Gray

2/27/2007 11:22:00 PM

0

On Feb 27, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2007, at 14:52, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> Am I understanding right that the new gem() does not actually
>> perform the require? It just sets up version handling, right?
>
> Kernel#gem adds the gem's require_paths to $:.

So gem prepends them to $:, so they will be found before the standard
libraries? Good to know.

James Edward Gray II

Evergreen the Magician

10/31/2010 6:27:00 PM

0

On alt.religion.christian, Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:50=A0am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> Yes, always.
>>
>> --
>> J Young
>> jvisi...@live.com
> Then address 1 Samuel 15.
>
> 1 Samuel 15:1-3 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to
> anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore
> hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the
> LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid
> wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite
> Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;
> but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel
> and ass.
>
> Saul was ordered by God to kill ALL Amalekites, including their
> unborn. In fact, when Saul spared the king and some cattle, he was
> rejected by God. Disobeying God is, in fact, evil.
>
> 1 Samuel 15:18-19
>
> And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly
> destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they
> be consumed.
>
> Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst
> fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
>
> So by assuming that abortion is always wrong, Saul slaying Amalek
> was both morally mandated AND morally prohibited. That is a
> contradiction, J.
>
>
> Michael

A book that spawns around 30,000 versions of (supposedly) the
same religion, has got to be a confusing book, wouldn't you say?


Sid

--
We are magickal beings and it's all Good.
http://tinyurl....
usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com

Don Martin

10/31/2010 7:24:00 PM

0

On Oct 31, 2:50 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Yes, always.

In your mother's case, never.

Syd M.

10/31/2010 7:27:00 PM

0

On Oct 31, 2:50 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Yes, always.
>

No.

PDW

The Chief Instigator

11/1/2010 3:23:00 AM

0

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:50:23 -0400, J <jvisions@live.com> wrote:
> Yes, always.

You'll never get pregnant, Jackass Junkie, and you'll never be married, for
the obvious reason.

--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, TX
(http://www.io.co...) AA #2237
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Texas 2 (October 31)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 5 vs. Toronto, 7:05

W.T.S.

11/1/2010 9:09:00 AM

0

In article <46h3aj.r0t.17.1@news.alt.net>, jvisions@live.com says...
>
> Yes, always.
No, never. Abortion is the only proper way to deal with a fetus. Child
birth is an abomination!
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/p...

Michael Ejercito

11/1/2010 4:21:00 PM

0

On Oct 31, 8:22 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:50:23 -0400, J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > Yes, always.
>
> You'll never get pregnant, Jackass Junkie, and you'll never be married, for
> the obvious reason.
>
> --
>     Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, TX
>                       (http://www.io.co...)  AA #2237
>                     LAST GAME: Houston 4, Texas 2 (October 31)
>                  NEXT GAME:  Friday, November 5 vs. Toronto, 7:05
Note that J still has not addressed 1 Samuel 15.

I could, of course, point to an even more recent example debunking
the notion that abortion is always wrong.

Assume that abortion is always wrong. Then the firebombing of Tokyo
during the 1940's was wrong because it terminated pregnancies by
incineration. But bombing defended cities during wartime by lawful
combatants is ALWAYS morally justified. The assumption that abortion
is always wrong leads to the conclusion that the firebombing of Tokyo
was both morally justified and morally prohibited. That is a
contradiction, and thus the assumption that abortion is always morally
prohibited is false.


Michael