In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
the list.
I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
address this.
Thanks
Matt
matt wrote:
In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
the list.I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
address this.
If methods are defined using attr_* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I've had this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.
--
James Britt
"If you don't write it down, it never happened."
- (Unknown)
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=627
On Jan 13, 2007, at 08:37, matt wrote:
In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
the list.I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
address this.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to
ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc. This is
very confusing !
On 1/13/07, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
matt wrote:
> In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
> listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
> nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
> the list.
>
> I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
> docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
> implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
> address this.If methods are defined using attr_* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I've had
this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.
--
(.) CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII ( http://arc.pasp.de/)
/ \ Contra formatos proprietarios
My take was based on the documentation of a method as follows from
Module.attr:
module Mod
attr :size, true
end
is equivalent to:
module Mod
def size
@size
end
def size=(val)
@size = val
end
end
So this implies that the attr* are in fact methods...
but it sounds like this dead horse has been beaten in the past.
Who knows, maybe it'll finally get to me and I'll write my own document parser...
Matt
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 03:33 +0900, Felipe Navas wrote:
On 1/13/07, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
> matt wrote:
> > In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
> > listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
> > nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
> > the list.
> >
> > I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
> > docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
> > implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
> > address this.
>
> If methods are defined using attr_* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
>
> I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I've had
> this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to
ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc. This is
very confusing !
It is because RDoc parses the actual method definition. Attr_* does
not have the string "\n def * ..." or the like in it.
On 1/13/07, Felipe Navas <felipenavas@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/07, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
> matt wrote:
> > In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
> > listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is
> > nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
> > the list.
> >
> > I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
> > docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
> > implementation. If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
> > address this.
>
> If methods are defined using attr_* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
>
> I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I've had
> this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to
ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc. This is
very confusing !--
(.) CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII ( http://arc.pasp.de/)
/ \ Contra formatos proprietarios
--
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com