I just installed the latest Windows version from Activestate (having
completely removed earlier version) ruby186-25.exe and that is working
fine:
C:\ruby\bin>ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32]
however when I came to work through tutorials I found Ri wasn't
working quite as I expected:
C:\ruby\bin>ri String#tr
···
--------------------------------------------------------------
String#tr
tr(from, to)
-------------------------------------------------------------
(no description...)
according to the tutorial I should get a lot more info about
parameters, example of usage etc. from last time I played with this I
thought it was more informative, have I missed an important step in
the installation?
Grehom wrote:
I just installed the latest Windows version from Activestate (having
completely removed earlier version) ruby186-25.exe and that is working
fine:
C:\ruby\bin>ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32]
however when I came to work through tutorials I found Ri wasn't
working quite as I expected:
C:\ruby\bin>ri String#tr
--------------------------------------------------------------
String#tr
tr(from, to)
-------------------------------------------------------------
(no description...)
according to the tutorial I should get a lot more info about
parameters, example of usage etc. from last time I played with this I
thought it was more informative, have I missed an important step in
the installation?
Nope, you did nothing wrong. At least, that's the same output I get (on Linux, having installed Ruby from a package manager). The fact that it even shows up means it's working. Otherwise it would say "Nothing known about String#tr". Other methods will have better documentation.
Thanks for quick response, I've found other functions seem to be
working ok, for example ri String#unpack, produced what my Pickaxe
book tells me about. But I did wonder where someone without the book
would get documentation on that function.
The reason is that rdoc picks empty docs from lib/jcode.rb.
Maybe we should add #:nodoc: to some of the methods in jcode.rb
J.
···
On 6/11/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Grehom wrote:
> I just installed the latest Windows version from Activestate (having
> completely removed earlier version) ruby186-25.exe and that is working
> fine:
> C:\ruby\bin>ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32]
>
> however when I came to work through tutorials I found Ri wasn't
> working quite as I expected:
>
> C:\ruby\bin>ri String#tr
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> String#tr
> tr(from, to)
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> (no description...)
>
> according to the tutorial I should get a lot more info about
> parameters, example of usage etc. from last time I played with this I
> thought it was more informative, have I missed an important step in
> the installation?
No; I'm seeing the same problem. For some reason tr isn't getting
picked up during rdoc/ri generation.
Grehom wrote:
Thanks for quick response, I've found other functions seem to be
working ok, for example ri String#unpack, produced what my Pickaxe
book tells me about. But I did wonder where someone without the book
would get documentation on that function.
I love Ruby. And Rails. But I've found the lack of documentation to be its weakest link. Big time. I'm a newbie and have asked other veterans about this - and they all agree.
I have filed patch that fixes the issue:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=11504&group_id=426&atid=1700
J.
···
On 6/11/07, Jano Svitok <jan.svitok@gmail.com> wrote:
The reason is that rdoc picks empty docs from lib/jcode.rb.
Maybe we should add #:nodoc: to some of the methods in jcode.rb
Larry Hannay wrote, On 6/11/2007 6:30 AM:
Grehom wrote:
Thanks for quick response, I've found other functions seem to be
working ok, for example ri String#unpack, produced what my Pickaxe
book tells me about. But I did wonder where someone without the book
would get documentation on that function.
I love Ruby. And Rails. But I've found the lack of documentation to be its weakest link. Big time. I'm a newbie and have asked other veterans about this - and they all agree.
What specifically have you found missing?
...except that in the OP's problem, ruby-doc gets its information from
RDoc, and hence also has broken/missing information on String#tr
···
On Jun 11, 10:48 am, James Britt <james.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Grehom wrote:
> Thanks for quick response, I've found other functions seem to be
> working ok, for example ri String#unpack, produced what my Pickaxe
> book tells me about. But I did wonder where someone without the book
> would get documentation on that function.
http://ruby-doc.org/
That's great thanks, I know other beginners like me will appreciate it.
···
On 11 Jun, 16:02, "Jano Svitok" <jan.svi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jano Svitok <jan.svi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason is that rdoc picks empty docs from lib/jcode.rb.
> Maybe we should add #:nodoc: to some of the methods in jcode.rb
I have filed patch that fixes the issue:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=11504&group_id\.\.\.
J.
Somehow ruby-doc.org has both definitions, empty tr and correct
str.tr. RI picks the first.
···
On 6/11/07, Phrogz <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:48 am, James Britt <james.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grehom wrote:
> > Thanks for quick response, I've found other functions seem to be
> > working ok, for example ri String#unpack, produced what my Pickaxe
> > book tells me about. But I did wonder where someone without the book
> > would get documentation on that function.
>
> http://ruby-doc.org/
...except that in the OP's problem, ruby-doc gets its information from
RDoc, and hence also has broken/missing information on String#tr
Oops, mea culpa. I saw the empty definition and missed the full one. 
···
On Jun 11, 12:54 pm, "Jano Svitok" <jan.svi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/11/07, Phrogz <g...@refinery.com> wrote:
> ...except that in the OP's problem, ruby-doc gets its information from
> RDoc, and hence also has broken/missing information on String#tr
Somehow ruby-doc.org has both definitions, empty tr and correct
str.tr. RI picks the first.