# Namespaces, inverted **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [28 December 2004 22:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/namespaces-inverted/15507 "2004-12-28T22:19:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![E\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@E\_S](https://rubytalk.org/u/E_S)\ **Post date:** [28 December 2004 22:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/namespaces-inverted/15507/1 "2004-12-28T22:19:00Z")
> L盲hett盲j盲: "Robert Klemme" \ > "Joel VanderWerf" \ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:41D0E5EF.1040308@path.berkeley.edu... > \> [Snip] > \> class String > \> def as mod > \> {:name =\> self, :module =\> mod} > \> end > \> end > I don't like the idea of the as method as it cannot be used reasonable in > other circumstances as module loading. The code really does not belong into > class String IMHO. Agreed. It just looked better 馃檪 I suppose a top-level method would have done as nicely for this how-it-can-be-done-now implementation. > We have Kernel#load [1] with a similar functionality already. Currently it > accepts an additional parameter to enforce wrapping of the file in an > anonymous module. That could be extended to accept a module as well; that > then would be the module used. Then we can do > > load "foo.rb" # not wrapped > load "foo.rb" # wrapped in an anonymous module > load "foo.rb", MyExternal # wrapped in MyExternal Good. I had to rely on a 1.6 reference knowledge and didn't recall the second parameter. Implementing it this way would, certainly, require a change at the core level so an RCR might be appropriate. I can write it up, I suppose. I'm still partial to 'import' vs. 'require', though 馃檪 > Additionally / Alternatively it could be useful to have a per module require > like this: > > class Module >   def require(\*files) >     # puts "loading in module #{self}: #{files.inspect}" >     @loaded ||= {} >     files.each do |f| >       unless @loaded[f] >         # real load code that wraps contents of f in self >         @loaded[f] = true >       end >     end >   end > end > > Then we could do > > module Foo >   require "bar" > end > > and even if we do the same later again, "bar" is only loaded once (see [2]). Looks nice, although the functionality is somewhat overlapping, no? > Kind regards > >     robert E > **路路路** > > > \> eero.saynatkari@kolumbus.fi wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robert)\ **Post date:** [29 December 2004 08:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/namespaces-inverted/15507/2 "2004-12-29T08:56:46Z")
"E S" \ schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20041228221857.GQPI5992.fep32-app.kolumbus.fi@mta.imail.kolumbus.fi... > \> L盲hett盲j盲: "Robert Klemme" \ > \> "Joel VanderWerf" \ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > \> news:41D0E5EF.1040308@path.berkeley.edu... > \> \> [Snip] > > \> \> class String > \> \> def as mod > \> \> {:name =\> self, :module =\> mod} > \> \> end > \> \> end > > \> I don't like the idea of the as method as it cannot be used reasonable in > \> other circumstances as module loading. The code really does not belong into > \> class String IMHO. > > Agreed. It just looked better 馃檪 I suppose a top-level method > would have done as nicely for this how-it-can-be-done-now > implementation. > > \> We have Kernel#load [1] with a similar functionality already. Currently it > \> accepts an additional parameter to enforce wrapping of the file in an > \> anonymous module. That could be extended to accept a module as well; that > \> then would be the module used. Then we can do > \> > \> load "foo.rb" # not wrapped > \> load "foo.rb" # wrapped in an anonymous module > \> load "foo.rb", MyExternal # wrapped in MyExternal > > Good. I had to rely on a 1.6 reference knowledge and didn't > recall the second parameter. Implementing it this way would, > certainly, require a change at the core level so an RCR might > be appropriate. I can write it up, I suppose. Great! > I'm still partial to 'import' vs. 'require', though 馃檪 Well, I'm open there. It's just that load and require have established semantics: "load" reads the file on every occurrence while "require" loads it only once (plus it does some file name magice to determine whether it's "foo.rb", or "foo.so" / "foo.dll"). > \> Additionally / Alternatively it could be useful to have a per module require > \> like this: > \> > \> class Module > \> def require(\*files) > \> # puts "loading in module #{self}: #{files.inspect}" > \> @loaded ||= {} > \> files.each do |f| > \> unless @loaded[f] > \> # real load code that wraps contents of f in self > \> @loaded[f] = true > \> end > \> end > \> end > \> end > \> > \> Then we could do > \> > \> module Foo > \> require "bar" > \> end > \> > \> and even if we do the same later again, "bar" is only loaded once (see [2]). > Looks nice, although the functionality is somewhat > overlapping, no? Yes, that's why I wrote "Additionally / Alternatively". 馃檪 But keep in mind the difference between load once and load always. Regards     robert > **路路路** > > > \> \> eero.saynatkari@kolumbus.fi wrote: