Issue #19889 has been reported by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19889: Let `Kernel.#require` search for files relative to the current working directory for non ./, ../ relative paths https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19889 * Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- My understanding is that `./` and `../` in the given path argument are interpreted relative to: (1) * The current working directory (for `load` or `require`) * The requiring file's path (for `require_relative`) which shows a division of labor between the methods, and seems reasonable. However, when it comes to other relative paths (e.g., `foo/bar.rb`), they are interpreted relative to: (2) * Paths in `$LOAD_PATH` (for `require`) * Paths in `$LOAD_PATH` or **the current working directory** (for `load` or `require_relative`) The search path in (2) for `require` is a proper subset of that of `load` and `require_relative`. There is no division of labor here; there is only inconvenience for `require`. Furthermore, in (1), `require` (as well as `load`) is concerned with the current working directory while `require_relative` is not, but in (2), the relation is reversed: `require_relative` (as well as `load`) is concerned with the current working directory while `require` is not. This situation is making the specification of `relative` versus `require_relative` difficult to understand, as well as inconvenience. **Proposal**: For non-`./`-or-`../` relative paths, I propose to let `Kernel.#require` search relative to the current working directory if the file is not found relative to the paths in `$LOAD_PATH`, so that the methods `load`, `require`, and `require_relative` all work the same in this respect. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/