I think byroot got it exactly right with: >First, I'm not convinced by the motivations: > >Avoiding name conflicts between libraries: Applications can requir

I think byroot got it exactly right with: >First, I'm not convinced by the motivations: > >Avoiding name conflicts between libraries: Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. > >Is this a problem that happens on a regular basis? I believe Ruby has a pretty well established convention for libraries to expose a single module with a name that correspond to their gem name. I really don't think we want to make it easier for newbies to alter gem naming conventions and run multiple versions of a gem within the same project, this sounds like a genuine nightmare to me. I've found from jumping in to fix broken and crippled rails projects for startups that the fuckup surface area is already high enough.