3. last but not least, online docs on Ruby's primary website (not
3rd-party websites) that is similar to those provided by PostgreSQL and
Python. Maybe we can volunteer to create 'official' ruby docs to be
hosted on ruby's primary website. Preferably using a popular
documentation format that does not use frames like these:
I know I'm getting into this late, but how about if each module came
with it's own ri documentation, similar to perl's perldoc.
I know being able to do this
ri Socket
ri OpenSSL
ri Net::SSH
would be great.
I think this, coupled with an up-to-date syntax manual would be a
huge boost to Ruby acceptance.
Anyone agree?
···
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hranicky, Senior SysAdmin UF/CISE Department |
E314D CSE Building Phone (352) 392-1499 |
jfh@cise.ufl.edu http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Hranicky wrote:
3. last but not least, online docs on Ruby's primary website (not 3rd-party websites) that is similar to those provided by PostgreSQL and Python. Maybe we can volunteer to create 'official' ruby docs to be hosted on ruby's primary website. Preferably using a popular documentation format that does not use frames like these:
I know I'm getting into this late, but how about if each module came
with it's own ri documentation, similar to perl's perldoc.
Well, they sort of already do, as ri data comes via rdoc'ing the source code. That's how the std-lib docs were generated.
I know being able to do this
ri Socket
ri OpenSSL
ri Net::SSH
Possible, if you run
rdoc --ri-site
or
rdoc --ri-system
(though I'm unclear on when you would pick one or the other)
on the standard library source.
But I believe there are side-effects on the main ri data files when standard lib files add to, or modify, core classes, and you run rdoc/ri on the whole standard lib tree.
would be great.
I think this, coupled with an up-to-date syntax manual would be a
huge boost to Ruby acceptance.
Certainly it would be a help if standard ri by default included both the core classes as well as those in the standard library.
James
* James F. Hranicky <jfh@cise.ufl.edu> [0108 13:08]:
> 3. last but not least, online docs on Ruby's primary website (not
> 3rd-party websites) that is similar to those provided by PostgreSQL and
> Python. Maybe we can volunteer to create 'official' ruby docs to be
> hosted on ruby's primary website. Preferably using a popular
> documentation format that does not use frames like these:
I know I'm getting into this late, but how about if each module came
with it's own ri documentation, similar to perl's perldoc.
I know being able to do this
ri Socket
ri OpenSSL
ri Net::SSH
would be great.
I think this, coupled with an up-to-date syntax manual would be a
huge boost to Ruby acceptance.
Anyone agree?
Damn right. I really miss this, and since I've started picking up my
ruby coding it's become more of a pain.
I'd also venture that there's less impetus on a developer to document his
code if it's hard to get at the docs - 'write only' data smells like red tape.
doc crew: Is there a reason why it's difficult, or is it just low priority?
···
--
'Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully? ....To shreds you say, tsk tsk tsk.
Well, how's his wife holding up? ....To shreds, you say...'
-- Prof. Farnsworth
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns