# Right way to partly upgrade standard library?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/right-way-to-partly-upgrade-standard-library/67317>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [September 2, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/right-way-to-partly-upgrade-standard-library/67317 "2006-09-02T04:46:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![graham\_w](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/3ab097/32.png) [@graham\_w](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/graham_w)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/right-way-to-partly-upgrade-standard-library/67317/1 "2006-09-02T04:46:06Z")

</div>

Folks:

Following on from my discovery that the 1.9 version of Pathname is  
needed  
for Windows, what’s the right way to incorporate that file into a 1.8.4  
setup while avoiding disruption?

1. Should I replace the existing pathname.rb?

But what if there’s some existing library that depends on the specifics  
of  
the old one?

1. Should I add pathname.rb with a new name (pathname19.rb)?

… and then require that file (instead of the old one) where I needed  
it?

It’s one thing for my code to specifically require the newer file, but  
maybe  
some other library I call will use the old one when I really want it to  
know  
how to deal with Windows paths. Hmmm.

1. What’s the general procedure for even determining whether the new  
library  
offers compatible methods etc?

Scratching head…

Graham

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![graham\_w](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/3ab097/32.png) [@graham\_w](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/graham_w)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2006, 2:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/right-way-to-partly-upgrade-standard-library/67317/2 "2006-09-04T14:43:28Z")

</div>

Hi,

At Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:45:26 +0900,  
Graham W. wrote in [ruby-talk:212227]:

> Following on from my discovery that the 1.9 version of Pathname is needed  
> for Windows, what’s the right way to incorporate that file into a 1.8.4  
> setup while avoiding disruption?

pathname.rb in 1.8.5 is same as 1.9.