Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>What is the best practice if I want to <code>require</code> a relative file in Ruby <em>and</em> I want it to work in both 1.8.x and >=1.9.2?</p> <p>I see a few options:</p> <ul> <li>just do <code>$LOAD_PATH &lt;&lt; '.'</code> and forget everything</li> <li>do <code>$LOAD_PATH &lt;&lt; File.dirname(__FILE__)</code></li> <li><code>require './path/to/file'</code></li> <li>check if <code>RUBY_VERSION</code> &lt; 1.9.2, then define <code>require_relative</code> as <code>require</code>, use <code>require_relative</code> everywhere where it's needed afterwards</li> <li>check if <code>require_relative</code> already exists, if it does, try to proceed as in previous case</li> <li>use weird constructions such as <code><pre><code>require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'path/to/file')</code></pre></code> - alas they don't seem to work in Ruby 1.9 throughly, because, for example: <pre><code><code>$ cat caller.rb require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'path/to/file') $ cat path/to/file.rb puts 'Some testing' $ ruby caller Some testing $ pwd /tmp $ ruby /tmp/caller Some testing $ ruby tmp/caller tmp/caller.rb:1:in 'require': no such file to load -- tmp/path/to/file (LoadError) from tmp/caller.rb:1:in '&lt;main&gt;'</code></code></pre></li> <li>Even weirder construction: <code><pre><code>require File.join(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__)), 'path/to/file')</code></pre></code> seems to work, but it's weird and not quite good looking.</li> <li>Use <a href="http://rubygems.org/gems/backports" rel="nofollow noreferrer">backports</a> gem - it's kind of heavy, it requires rubygems infrastructure and includes tons of other workarounds, while I just want <code>require</code> to work with relative files.</li> </ul> <p>There's a <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4325759/is-require-file-expand-path-file-the-best-practice">closely related question at StackOverflow</a> that gives some more examples, but it doesn't give a clear answer - which is a best practice.</p> <p>Is there are any decent, accepted-by-everyone universal solution to make my application run on both Ruby &lt;1.9.2 and >=1.9.2?</p> <h2>UPDATE</h2> <p>Clarification: I don't want just answers like "you can do X" - in fact, I've already mentioned most of choices in question. I want <em>rationale</em>, i.e. <em>why</em> it is a best practice, what are its pros and cons and why it should be chosen among the others.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USCommunity
    1. USGreyCat
    plurals
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    2. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    2. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    3. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. USAndrew Grimm
      1. VTFavorite
    1. COHi I'm new. Could someone explain from the start—what's the difference between `require` and `require_relative`?
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. USColonel Panic
    2. COIn older Ruby 1.8 if you ran file `a.rb` and wanted to make interpreter read and parse contents of file `b.rb` in current directory (usually the same dir as with `a.rb`), you'd just write `require 'b'` and it would be fine as default search path included current directory. In more modern Ruby 1.9, you'll have to write `require_relative 'b'` in this case, as `require 'b'` would only search in standard library paths. That's the thing that kind of breaks forward and backward compatibility for simpler scripts that aren't going to be installed properly (for example, *install* scripts themselves).
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. USGreyCat
    3. COYou can now use `backports` just for `require_relative`, see my answer...
      singulars
      1. PORuby: require vs require_relative - best practice to workaround running in both Ruby <1.9.2 and >=1.9.2
      1. USMarc-André Lafortune
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload