Rubyinstaller users - Nov 2004 - Re: I need your opinion on setting RUBYOPT

Curt Hibbs wrote:
>Chad Fowler wrote:
>  
>
>>I''m pro-RUBYOPT but wouldn''t mind an option to
enable/disable it during
>>install (on by default--I think that most users who don''t know
they
>>_don''t_ want it will have a better experience if it''s
set by default).
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, I''m going to make setting RUBYOPT a checkable option in the
installer
>that will be checked (enabled) by default.
>
I''m fine with that. I would make sure the description is clear and not 
obtuse, something like:
"Enable searching of RubyGems for all programs"

-austin

Hi !

I just read the thread discussing Rubygems and RUBYOPT. I haven''t 
used Rubygems, but I have some general comments.

My instinctive reaction is that it is a bad thing to use RUBYOPT for 
this purpose. My experience is that a "misuse" of a mechanism that 
"happens to exist" (like RUBYOPT) often turns out to have 
undesirable consequences.

Until Rubygems becomes an integrated part of Ruby, I think it is 
better to have the user make some explicit step to enable it.

Or if you really want the Rubyinstaller version of Ruby to have 
Rubygems "integrated", I think you should use some other mechanism 
than RUBYOPT. For example by modifying the Ruby source so it becomes 
Rubygems-aware. Maybe via a newly invented environment variable if 
it should be optional (e.g. RUBYGEMS_ENABLED).

I see you have already discussed the issue of setting vs. appending 
to RUBYOPT. Another issue is the following:

RUBYOPT is only read on $SAFE level 0. As far as I understand, this 
implies that a script would silently work different if $SAFE >= 1.
This seems like a bad thing.

/Johan Holmberg