require should treat "." and ".." like any other directory names

[smcmurray]

require(".") should load ./index.js
require("..") should load ../index.js

[silverwind]

I too once expected require('.') to work, but turns out you need to do require('./'). Is there a specific reason we need that trailing slash inside therequire path?

Here's the current error:

> require('.')
Error: Cannot find module '.'
    at Function.Module._resolveFilename (module.js:320:15)
    at Function.Module._load (module.js:262:25)
    at Module.require (module.js:349:17)
    at require (module.js:368:17)
    at repl:1:1
    at REPLServer.defaultEval (repl.js:116:27)
    at bound (domain.js:254:14)
    at REPLServer.runBound [as eval] (domain.js:267:12)
    at REPLServer.<anonymous> (repl.js:269:12)
    at emitOne (events.js:77:13)

[rvagg]

I can't think of a good reason so I'm +1 on this unless someone comes up with something, perhaps @isaacs can chime in?

[targos]

@smcmurray require('..') does already load the correct file

[silverwind]

Fixed by 6fc5e95

[rlidwka]

@silverwind ,

I know it's nitpicking, but... ..test is still treated incorrectly (as a local file, but it should be a module).

Since we're bikeshedding the hell out of it anyway, my suggestion for iojs@2.0 is this:

// old method
/*function isRelative(p) {
  start = p.substring(0, 2);
  if (start !== '.' && start !== './' && start !== '..') {
    return false;
  } else {
    return true;
  }
}*/

// proposed method
function isRelative(p) {
  if (p[0] !== '.') return false;
  if (p.length === 1) return true; // "."

  if (p[1] !== '.') return p[1] === '/'; // "./"
  if (p.length === 2) return true; // ".."

  return p[2] === '/';
}

/*
 * Tests
 */
var assert = require('assert');

assert(isRelative('.'));
assert(isRelative('./foo'));
assert(isRelative('..'));
assert(isRelative('../foo'));

assert(!isRelative('.foo'));
assert(!isRelative('..foo'));

[silverwind]

Good suggestion. I (and whoever wrote those module parts) didn't even think about module names starting with dots. I wonder if these are valid npm module names (e.g. they can be published).

[rlidwka]

They are not valid module names, npm forbids anything starting with a dot, see validate-npm-package.

So it's purely for consistency reasons. Right now you can create file named "..foo.js" and require('..foo') it. It looks like a module, but it's not. I'd like to discourage that.