Re: relative load-file

[Richard Stallman]

    First, it seems like a little more work that isn't strictly needed - adding
    that file.

That is one file in your entire program, which we assume is so many
files that you have decided to split it into multiple directories.
It is negligible work.

    Second, as files move over the course of the lifetime of a project, this
    scheme will *always* require changing files more often than what I proposed
    . Here is an example based on experience so far.

With file-relative references, any time you move one file,
you have to change all its references to other files,
as well as all other files' references to it.

With main-directory-relative references, when you move a file
between subdirectories, you don't have to change its references
to other files.  You only change the way other files refer to it.

Thus, when moving one file, the main-directory-relative approach
always requires less change.

You present a scenario of moving many files together.  Indeed, in that
scenario, the file-relative approach avoids the need to change the way
these files refer to each other.  But it still requires changing the
way they refer to all other files.

I can't fully follow your scenario because

    For now, I find it convenient to split the parts of the Ruby
    debugger *rbdgr* into several of files: *rbdbgr-core*, 
*rbdbgr-track-mode*and
    *rbdbgr*

I don't understand the significance of the *'s.  Do you write *'s in
file names, or are they wildcards, or what?

Emacs convention is not to use *'s in any names, except for names
of special buffers.