# Rdocifying the libraries in ruby/lib

**URL:** <https://rubytalk.org/t/rdocifying-the-libraries-in-ruby-lib/730>\
**Category:** ruby-talk\
**Created:** [17 July 2002 22:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/rdocifying-the-libraries-in-ruby-lib/730 "2002-07-17T22:48:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bbense\_Comp\_Lang\_R27](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@Bbense\_Comp\_Lang\_R27](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bbense_Comp_Lang_R27)\
**Post date:** [17 July 2002 22:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/rdocifying-the-libraries-in-ruby-lib/730/1 "2002-07-17T22:48:49Z")

</div>

- 
  - After running rdoc against the src in ruby/lib I noticed  
that most(all?) of these files have comments stripped out.

Was that done intentionally?

Are commented versions of these files available anywhere?

- 
  - If not I think it would be a useful project to begin  
documenting the “standard” ruby libs enough that rdoc  
would produce useful documentation.

- 
  - Would these patches be accepted back into the ruby  
src tree? If so, I’ll attempt to organize something  
to get the ball rolling on this project.

- 
  - Booker C. Bense

> **···**
>
> –

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Berger\_Daniel2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc348/32.png) [@Berger\_Daniel2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Berger_Daniel2)\
**Post date:** [18 July 2002 16:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/rdocifying-the-libraries-in-ruby-lib/730/2 "2002-07-18T16:10:10Z")

</div>

After thinking about it a bit, I guess my proposal (at  
[www.rubygarden.org](http://www.rubygarden.org)) for getting a pack() template length was too  
Perl-ish.

However, there was only feedback from one person, so I thought I’d ask  
here.

How do people feel about a separate class for pack templates (being  
added to the core librar, I mean)? Or is there a simple way to get this  
information after all that I’ve missed?

Regards,

Dan