Try the quicksearch at the top of the class index
On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:37, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
the file index useful and almost always use the class index.I whole heartedly agree with that.
Eric Hodel wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
If you don't file a bug it won't get fixed.
Done. I wasn't familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
hence my posting here. Thanks!
Clifford Heath.
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).
Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
result in 404's currently.
Thanks!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Now that prawn has been split out into various extensions, prawn-core
isn't too bad.
http://prawn.majesticseacreature.com/docs/prawn-core/
I'll probably give the latest RDoc a try soon, and post here if I do.
-greg
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:24, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
The RDoc documentation is a pretty bad sample, since the majority of
the methods say 'not documented'. I suggest putting a small but
well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.Patches welcome
Will sift rubyforge for candidates. Prawn looks pretty good in terms
of coverage, though perhaps something smaller would be better.
--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com
Oh, that's a very interesting thought. +1
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Sawyer <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.
--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com
The are many linked files that ends up with 404, for example:
page: http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
section FILES: bullet_toggle_minus.png (I think that all .png files
does not work)
I'll fix this, either these files shouldn't show up (RDoc bug) or a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my oversight). I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think it is overzealous now.
There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 07:51 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
also the links to files like a.png point [in error] to a.png.rhtml
And when you click on those files, it shows the requires and last
modified file dates--it would be way nice to display the file itself, as
well [or is it supposed to?]
more -t and vim -t work very well for me...
Navigating via a web browser across various files quickly gets tedious. It's a breeze with a decent editor (one that has tags support).
On Jan 30, 2009, at 06:33 AM, Thomas Sawyer wrote:
I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.
Roger Pack wrote:
It definitely looks better.
I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
the file index useful and almost always use the class index.I whole heartedly agree with that.
James Edward Gray II
+1
I assume that's referring to the leftmost side bars on pages like
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc.html
?
Right. I see. It's on the class pages, but not on the main page.
I can understand that for people who don't bother to make their own
custom webpage for a project, but I almost always do. So for me the
normal rendering of README.txt makes more sense
(http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/README.txt.html\). Not sure what the answer
is, maybe a new command line flag.
T.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
If you think it could possibly be a bug, best to file it!
That's my rule.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 23:00 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
Eric Hodel wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
If you don't file a bug it won't get fixed.
Done. I wasn't familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
hence my posting here. Thanks!
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
Not for me:
$ curl -I http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:59:15 GMT
ETag: "cf2f-463b7ef7db2c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
On Feb 25, 2009, at 14:27, Roger Pack wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:42 GMT
Oh, you can rebuild all your rdoc on your machine with:
sudo gem rdoc --all --no-ri
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Gregory Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Martin DeMello > <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> >> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:24, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
The RDoc documentation is a pretty bad sample, since the majority of
the methods say 'not documented'. I suggest putting a small but
well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.Patches welcome
Will sift rubyforge for candidates. Prawn looks pretty good in terms
of coverage, though perhaps something smaller would be better.Now that prawn has been split out into various extensions, prawn-core
isn't too bad.
http://prawn.majesticseacreature.com/docs/prawn-core/I'll probably give the latest RDoc a try soon, and post here if I do.
Yeah, I agree. That would be nice.
James Edward Gray II
On Jan 30, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Gregory Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Sawyer <transfire@gmail.com> > wrote:
I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.Oh, that's a very interesting thought. +1
I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.Oh, that's a very interesting thought. +1
+1 for me.
Also a nice thought would be to be able to "open the full file" from the
code snippet pop-downs--like a link back to see that method within
context.
Thanks for helping out.
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I've filed a bug for this
martin
2009/1/31 Radosław Bułat <radek.bulat@gmail.com>:
The are many linked files that ends up with 404, for example:
page: http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
section FILES: bullet_toggle_minus.png (I think that all .png files
does not work)
Actually, it's a Hoe issue. I'll have fixed documentation up when I'm next at a shell
On Jan 30, 2009, at 13:46, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 07:51 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
also the links to files like a.png point [in error] to a.png.rhtml
And when you click on those files, it shows the requires and last
modified file dates--it would be way nice to display the file itself, as
well [or is it supposed to?]I'll fix this, either these files shouldn't show up (RDoc bug) or a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my oversight). I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think it is overzealous now.
There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files
You didn't read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.
Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 14:27, Roger Pack wrote:
>> I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
>>
>> Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
>> improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
>> like it but have never actually used it).
>
> Thanks for doing that.
> As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
> on
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417Not for me:
$ curl -I http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:42 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:59:15 GMT
ETag: "cf2f-463b7ef7db2c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
--
matt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, Matt Neuburg’s Home Page
Leopard - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/leopard-customizing.html
AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102119
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com
ah, oops! fixed, RDoc 2.4.1 forthcoming shortly.
On Feb 25, 2009, at 17:30, matt neuburg wrote:
Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 14:27, Roger Pack wrote:
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417Not for me:
$ curl -I http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:42 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:59:15 GMT
ETag: "cf2f-463b7ef7db2c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/htmlYou didn't read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.
Roger Pack wrote:
I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.Oh, that's a very interesting thought. +1
+1 for me.
Also a nice thought would be to be able to "open the full file" from the
code snippet pop-downs--like a link back to see that method within
context.
Now that I think about it, including the source of C methods which have
no documentation would also be quite helpful--in that case it basically
is the only documentation you get [ex: shoes].
Thanks!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.