# Newbie question about Ri **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [8 June 2007 09:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199 "2007-06-08T09:40:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Graham\_Smith1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Graham\_Smith1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Smith1)\ **Post date:** [8 June 2007 09:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/1 "2007-06-08T09:40:18Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Zwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ea924/32.png) [@Dan\_Zwell](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dan_Zwell)\ **Post date:** [8 June 2007 09:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/2 "2007-06-08T09:49:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![David\_A\_Black3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@David\_A\_Black3](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_A_Black3)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 13:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/3 "2007-06-11T13:28:48Z")
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. > > David > > -- > \* Books: >    RAILS ROUTING (new! [http://safari.awprofessional.com/9780321509246\](http://safari.awprofessional.com/9780321509246%5C)) >    RUBY FOR RAILS ([http://www.manning.com/black\](http://www.manning.com/black%5C)) > \* Ruby/Rails training >      & consulting: Ruby Power and Light, LLC ([http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)) ---
**Author:** ![Graham\_Smith1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Graham\_Smith1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Smith1)\ **Post date:** [8 June 2007 10:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/4 "2007-06-08T10:00:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jan\_Svitok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jan\_Svitok](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jan_Svitok)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 15:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/5 "2007-06-11T15:25:04Z")
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 \ 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. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Hannay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Larry\_Hannay](https://rubytalk.org/u/Larry_Hannay)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 11:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/6 "2007-06-11T11:30:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jan\_Svitok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jan\_Svitok](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jan_Svitok)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 16:02 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/7 "2007-06-11T16:02:01Z")
I have filed patch that fixes the issue: [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=11504&group\_id=426&atid=1700](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=11504&group_id=426&atid=1700) J. > **···** > > On 6/11/07, Jano Svitok \ 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 ---
**Author:** ![James\_Britt3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b782af/32.png) [@James\_Britt3](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Britt3)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 16:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/8 "2007-06-11T16:48:41Z")
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. > **[Ruby-Doc.org: Documenting the Ruby Language](https://ruby-doc.org/)** > > Fast, searchable Ruby documentation for core and standard libraries. Plus, links to tutorials, guides, books, and related sites. > **···** > > -- > James Britt > > "A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it." >    - Len Bullard ---
**Author:** ![Sammy\_Larbi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Sammy\_Larbi](https://rubytalk.org/u/Sammy_Larbi)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 13:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/9 "2007-06-11T13:09:19Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Kistner2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Gavin\_Kistner2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Kistner2)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 18:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/10 "2007-06-11T18:40:16Z")
...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 \ 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/](http://ruby-doc.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Graham\_Smith1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Graham\_Smith1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Smith1)\ **Post date:** [15 June 2007 07:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/11 "2007-06-15T07:20:13Z")
That's great thanks, I know other beginners like me will appreciate it. > **···** > > On 11 Jun, 16:02, "Jano Svitok" \ wrote: > > > On 6/11/07, Jano Svitok \ 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\.\.\](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=11504&group_id%5C.%5C.%5C). > > > > J. ---
**Author:** ![Jan\_Svitok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jan\_Svitok](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jan_Svitok)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 18:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/12 "2007-06-11T18:54:35Z")
Somehow ruby-doc.org has both definitions, empty tr and correct str.tr. RI picks the first. > **···** > > On 6/11/07, Phrogz \ wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 10:48 am, James Britt \ 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/](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 ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Kistner2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Gavin\_Kistner2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Kistner2)\ **Post date:** [11 June 2007 19:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/newbie-question-about-ri/38199/13 "2007-06-11T19:05:07Z")
Oops, mea culpa. I saw the empty definition and missed the full one. 🙂 > **···** > > On Jun 11, 12:54 pm, "Jano Svitok" \ wrote: > > > On 6/11/07, Phrogz \ 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.