# Ruby -rubygems -rgem\_name fails--is this a bug?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-rubygems-rgem-name-fails-is-this-a-bug/179740>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [December 2, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-rubygems-rgem-name-fails-is-this-a-bug/179740 "2009-12-02T23:38:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-rubygems-rgem-name-fails-is-this-a-bug/179740/1 "2009-12-02T23:38:06Z")

</div>

See the title.  
With 1.8

ruby -rubygems -rgem\_name fails

With 1.9 it doesn’t, but only because of gem prelude.  
Is this a bug? It smells like one.  
-r

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-rubygems-rgem-name-fails-is-this-a-bug/179740/2 "2009-12-03T00:30:38Z")

</div>

On Dec 2, 7:38 pm, Roger P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> See the title.  
> With 1.8
> 
> ruby -rubygems -rgem\_name fails
> 
> With 1.9 it doesn’t, but only because of gem prelude.  
> Is this a bug? It smells like one.

ruby -r is not using the redefined version of require once rubygems is  
loaded.

That has been defined as 1.8 behavior and don’t see it changing in the  
future.