== Changes
* Fixed method name extraction for non \w+ methods (e.g., operators)
* Updated to work under RDoc >= 2.2.0 (fixes #2).
* Updated build system to add the workaround for developmental dependencies bug
under RubyGems 1.2.0 (#21510).
Darkfish is a complete frameless replacement for the default HTML generator for Rdoc, the API documentation-extraction system for Ruby.
I love you.
From the README:
Because of the way Rdoc and Rubygems work, there's currently no way to make the
Darkfish generator available to Rdoc from the command line 'rdoc' tool if you
have it installed as a gem, but if you install it as a regular Ruby library
(via 'rake install'), you can do this:
$ rdoc -w 4 -SHN -f darkfish -m README README lib
I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this for the gem. Suggestions welcomed.
I've added code to RubyGems itself to help gem authors automatically pull in extensions, but it'll take another release of RDoc to implement it.
Would you consider allowing RDoc to replace its current HTML generator with Darkfish? (I did a cursory review, and it seems nice, I will need to refactor the Numeric.extend to avoid pollution, though.)
···
On Sep 25, 2008, at 23:23 PM, ged@FaerieMUD.org wrote:
Darkfish is a complete frameless replacement for the default HTML
generator for Rdoc, the API
documentation-extraction system for Ruby.
This looks beautiful! I love how clean the template file organization
is. I agree with Eric that it would make a great replacement for RDoc's
default HTML generator.
My only request is for it to allow user-specified templates.
I you do replace it, please keep the old one available under a
different name.
Thanks,
T.
···
On Sep 26, 6:14 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 23:23 PM, g...@FaerieMUD.org wrote:
> Version 1.1.5 of Darkfish-Rdoc has been released.
> Darkfish is a complete frameless replacement for the default HTML
> generator for Rdoc, the API documentation-extraction system for Ruby.
I love you.
From the README:
> Because of the way Rdoc and Rubygems work, there's currently no way
> to make the
> Darkfish generator available to Rdoc from the command line 'rdoc'
> tool if you
> have it installed as a gem, but if you install it as a regular Ruby
> library
> (via 'rake install'), you can do this:
> I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this for the gem.
> Suggestions welcomed.
I've added code to RubyGems itself to help gem authors automatically
pull in extensions, but it'll take another release of RDoc to
implement it.
Would you consider allowing RDoc to replace its current HTML generator
with Darkfish? (I did a cursory review, and it seems nice, I will
need to refactor the Numeric.extend to avoid pollution, though.)
Because of the way Rdoc and Rubygems work, there's currently no way to make the
Darkfish generator available to Rdoc from the command line 'rdoc' tool if you
have it installed as a gem, but if you install it as a regular Ruby library
(via 'rake install'), you can do this:
$ rdoc -w 4 -SHN -f darkfish -m README README lib
I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this for the gem. Suggestions welcomed.
I've added code to RubyGems itself to help gem authors automatically pull in extensions, but it'll take another release of RDoc to implement it.
Yay!
Would you consider allowing RDoc to replace its current HTML generator with Darkfish? (I did a cursory review, and it seems nice, I will need to refactor the Numeric.extend to avoid pollution, though.)
Of course! It still generates invalid HTML under a few circumstances I noticed recently, so I'd like to clean those up, but feel free to use it however you'd like.
···
On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 23:23 PM, ged@FaerieMUD.org wrote:
--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage, Architect, Believer
The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.FaerieMUD.org/>
1. Shouldn't that search box go on the top, rather than at the bottom?
2. I would really love different image/icon for public class methods
and public instance methods, if you would agree.
···
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Granger <ged@faeriemud.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 23:23 PM, ged@FaerieMUD.org wrote:
I love you.
Aw, I'm pretty fond of you, too!
From the README:
Because of the way Rdoc and Rubygems work, there's currently no way to
make the
Darkfish generator available to Rdoc from the command line 'rdoc' tool if
you
have it installed as a gem, but if you install it as a regular Ruby
library
(via 'rake install'), you can do this:
$ rdoc -w 4 -SHN -f darkfish -m README README lib
I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this for the gem. Suggestions
welcomed.
I've added code to RubyGems itself to help gem authors automatically pull
in extensions, but it'll take another release of RDoc to implement it.
Yay!
Would you consider allowing RDoc to replace its current HTML generator
with Darkfish? (I did a cursory review, and it seems nice, I will need to
refactor the Numeric.extend to avoid pollution, though.)
Of course! It still generates invalid HTML under a few circumstances I
noticed recently, so I'd like to clean those up, but feel free to use it
however you'd like.
Choice for users means maintenance burden for maintainers. I would like RDoc to get smaller, not bigger. By moving the current HTML generator out of RDoc I can push the support burden to people who want to live in the past. (The HTML generator could use a giant refactoring, but that would break backwards compatibility, and there's still the XML generator to maintain. Since Darkfish sits on top of the XML generator there is less code, less maintenance and a superior template to serve as an example for others.)
If 10% of users use a feature I really want to remove it so the people who find it important can maintain it. Everyone can get better support this way, as they are working on what they are passionate about.
···
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:47, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:08 pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Segment 7 <drbr...@segment7.net> >> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2008, at 16:52, Aria Stewart <aredri...@nbtsc.org> wrote:
I you do replace it, please keep the old one available under a
different name.
Pluggable, please!
I would package the old one as a gem.
Do it!
Why another gem? What's wrong with with having a few choices built-in?
In that case you may as well toss it. No one will maintain it.
T.
···
On Sep 27, 4:28 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:47, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:08 pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Segment 7 <drbr...@segment7.net> > >> wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 2008, at 16:52, Aria Stewart <aredri...@nbtsc.org> wrote:
>>>>> I you do replace it, please keep the old one available under a
>>>>> different name.
>>>> Pluggable, please!
>>> I would package the old one as a gem.
>> Do it!
> Why another gem? What's wrong with with having a few choices built-in?
Choice for users means maintenance burden for maintainers. I would
like RDoc to get smaller, not bigger. By moving the current HTML
generator out of RDoc I can push the support burden to people who want
to live in the past. (The HTML generator could use a giant
refactoring, but that would break backwards compatibility, and there's
still the XML generator to maintain. Since Darkfish sits on top of the
XML generator there is less code, less maintenance and a superior
template to serve as an example for others.)
If 10% of users use a feature I really want to remove it so the people
who find it important can maintain it. Everyone can get better support
this way, as they are working on what they are passionate about.
