updated the bio-table to use require_relative

[vpereira]

to make it easier to load from irb if you are developing the lib and it isn't in your path.

now you can:

cd bioruby-table
irb

require './lib/bio-table'
=> true
include BioTable
=> true

[pjotrp]

Please pass in multiple patches. So I can accept/reject them one at a time.

Leave it like it is for now - I'll look into the components.

[vpereira]

hm. I don't know, but github merge everything in one commit and i cannot open another one while this one isn't accepted/denied. Maybe the best approach would be fork, create a repository and do a pull request for this repository.

btw without the require_relative, for development (without install the gem), how do you require it? messing with the load path as:

rootpath = File.dirname(File.dirname(__FILE__))
$: << File.join(rootpath,'lib')

[pjotrp]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 03:01:59AM -0800, vpereira wrote:

hm. I don't know, but github merge everything in one commit and i cannot open
another one while this one isn't accepted/denied. Maybe the best approach would
be fork, create a repository and do a pull request for this repository.

Looks like a github representation of multiple patches, indeed. Still,
should have been 3 commits instead of 2 anyway. I'll deal with these.

No need to fork multiple times.

btw without the require_relative, for development (without install the gem),
how do you require it? messing with the load path as:

rootpath = File.dirname(File.dirname(FILE))
$: << File.join(rootpath,'lib')

Yes, that appears to be the consensus - unless you can find
information that has it otherwise.

[vpereira]

well, AFAIK, for ruby >= 1.9, consensus is to use the require_relative.

I didn't search extensively, to find a "real" explanation but here is well pointed: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/why-does-ruby-1-9-2-remove-from-load-path-and-whats-the-alternative

I sometimes mess with the variable $: sometimes, but I don't see it as best practice. Anyway I won't be sad if you don't merge it. I see it more as matter of taste :-)

[pjotrp]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:35:27AM -0800, vpereira wrote:

well, AFAIK, for ruby >= 1.9, consensus is to use the require_relative.

There is no such thing as consensus in the Ruby world ;)

I didn't search extensively, to find a "real" explanation but here is well
pointed: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/
why-does-ruby-1-9-2-remove-from-load-path-and-whats-the-alternative

I sometimes mess with the variable $: sometimes, but I don't see it as best
practice. Anyway I won't be sad if you don't merge it. I see it more as matter
of taste :-)

I'll look into it. Just think we should always pursue the 'right'
thing. Thanks for the suggestion.