James Britt
1/20/2005 2:09:00 PM
James F. Hranicky wrote:
>>3. last but not least, online docs on Ruby's primary website (not
>>3rd-party websites) that is similar to those provided by PostgreSQL and
>>Python. Maybe we can volunteer to create 'official' ruby docs to be
>>hosted on ruby's primary website. Preferably using a popular
>>documentation format that does not use frames like these:
>
>
> I know I'm getting into this late, but how about if each module came
> with it's own ri documentation, similar to perl's perldoc.
Well, they sort of already do, as ri data comes via rdoc'ing the source
code. That's how the std-lib docs were generated.
>
> I know being able to do this
>
> ri Socket
> ri OpenSSL
> ri Net::SSH
Possible, if you run
rdoc --ri-site
or
rdoc --ri-system
(though I'm unclear on when you would pick one or the other)
on the standard library source.
But I believe there are side-effects on the main ri data files when
standard lib files add to, or modify, core classes, and you run rdoc/ri
on the whole standard lib tree.
>
> would be great.
>
> I think this, coupled with an up-to-date syntax manual would be a
> huge boost to Ruby acceptance.
Certainly it would be a help if standard ri by default included both the
core classes as well as those in the standard library.
James