I have been thinking recently that I wish I could access ri data for
core without having to install it myself
like some web service to look up ri information for me. Perhaps a
globally accessible fastri server or what not.
Does anybody know if such a thing exists?
If not would it be a good idea for me to set one up?
Thanks!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
If you're just looking for core docs, check out http://www.ruby-doc.org/\.
From the sound of it, you want to access documentation via the RI tool via
the web. Why is that? What is the problem you are trying to solve?
James H.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been thinking recently that I wish I could access ri data for
core without having to install it myself
like some web service to look up ri information for me. Perhaps a
globally accessible fastri server or what not.Does anybody know if such a thing exists?
If not would it be a good idea for me to set one up?Thanks!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
T.
On Jun 11, 8:50 am, Roger Pack <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been thinking recently that I wish I could access ri data for
core without having to install it myself
like some web service to look up ri information for me. Perhaps a
globally accessible fastri server or what not.Does anybody know if such a thing exists?
If not would it be a good idea for me to set one up?
James Herdman wrote:
If you're just looking for core docs, check out
http://www.ruby-doc.org/\.
From the sound of it, you want to access documentation via the RI tool
via
the web. Why is that? What is the problem you are trying to solve?
Many times the ruby I use does not have ri installed. Plus accessing it
from the command line is slow (main reason for fastri). Yep that's the
problem--I don't want to have to *worry* whether I installed the docs or
not.
Thanks.
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
T.
That has potential. I suppose I could just extract ri information from
the rdoc pages there or from ruby-doc.org
is the code for that one available?
except for my dislike of parsing html...
Thanks much.
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Which RDoc do you have installed? rdoc --version will tell you.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 09:17, Roger Pack wrote:
Many times the ruby I use does not have ri installed. Plus accessing it
from the command line is slow (main reason for fastri). Yep that's the
problem--I don't want to have to *worry* whether I installed the docs or
is the code for that one available?
oops my bad
it is indeed available
http://webri.rubyforge.org/
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
if you just want the ri data, it is kept in yaml files generated by
rdoc.
try /usr/share/ri/1.8/system/
T.
On Jun 13, 8:33 am, Roger Pack <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T.
That has potential. I suppose I could just extract ri information from
the rdoc pages there or from ruby-doc.orgis the code for that one available?
Which RDoc do you have installed? rdoc --version will tell you.
$ rdoc --version
RDoc V1.0.1 - 20041108
I suppose newer versions are faster?
[unfortunately it seems that still my ruby installs tend to not include
the docs, hence a public lookup being nice]. I'd even be willing to
submit a patch to ri s.t. it goes to some lookup if you don't install
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptable 
)
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
You could probably do a plugin for it, there's lots of great ideas out there but I don't have the time to maintain them all. It's much easier for me to add hooks in RDoc for a plugin than it is to maintain the plugin.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:54, Roger Pack wrote:
Which RDoc do you have installed? rdoc --version will tell you.
$ rdoc --version
RDoc V1.0.1 - 20041108I suppose newer versions are faster?
[unfortunately it seems that still my ruby installs tend to not include
the docs, hence a public lookup being nice]. I'd even be willing to
submit a patch to ri s.t. it goes to some lookup if you don't install
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptable
RDoc 2 is significantly faster than 1, but I don't think it can match fastri speeds since it is more conservative in its changes.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:54, Roger Pack wrote:
Which RDoc do you have installed? rdoc --version will tell you.
$ rdoc --version
RDoc V1.0.1 - 20041108I suppose newer versions are faster?
[unfortunately it seems that still my ruby installs tend to not include
the docs, hence a public lookup being nice]. I'd even be willing to
submit a patch to ri s.t. it goes to some lookup if you don't install
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptable
And unfortunately fastri has not kept up with the changes to rdoc, so
it doesn't work anymore, and Mauricio seems to have abandoned it.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Eric Hodel<drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:54, Roger Pack wrote:
Which RDoc do you have installed? rdoc --version will tell you.
$ rdoc --version
RDoc V1.0.1 - 20041108I suppose newer versions are faster?
[unfortunately it seems that still my ruby installs tend to not include
the docs, hence a public lookup being nice]. I'd even be willing to
submit a patch to ri s.t. it goes to some lookup if you don't install
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptableRDoc 2 is significantly faster than 1, but I don't think it can match fastri
speeds since it is more conservative in its changes.
--
Rick DeNatale
Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptable
You could probably do a plugin for it, there's lots of great ideas out
there but I don't have the time to maintain them all. It's much
easier for me to add hooks in RDoc for a plugin than it is to maintain
the plugin.
is ri pluggable?
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
ri being part of RDoc, it is possible in theory. I don't know if anybody has tried to prove this theory.
If it's not, I'll accept patches.
On Jun 12, 2009, at 07:51, Roger Pack wrote:
docs by default, if it would be useful (and acceptable
You could probably do a plugin for it, there's lots of great ideas out
there but I don't have the time to maintain them all. It's much
easier for me to add hooks in RDoc for a plugin than it is to maintain
the plugin.is ri pluggable?