[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

ri needs to tell me what to require

Ben Giddings

2/16/2005 9:38:00 PM

% ri File.copy

------------------------------------------------------------- File::copy
File::copy(from, to, verbose = false)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies a file +from+ to +to+ using #syscopy. If +to+ is a
directory, copies +from+ to +to/from+. If +verbose+ is true, +from
-> to+ is printed.

Yay! That's what I want!

irb(main):001:0> File.copy("foo", "bar")
NoMethodError: undefined method `copy' for File:Class
from (irb):1

*cry*

It turns out that File.copy is defined in 'ftools', but I have no idea
how I'm supposed to know that.

Ben
4 Answers

Brian Schröder

2/17/2005 8:15:00 AM

0

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:37:54 +0900
Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> wrote:

> % ri File.copy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------- File::copy
> File::copy(from, to, verbose = false)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copies a file +from+ to +to+ using #syscopy. If +to+ is a
> directory, copies +from+ to +to/from+. If +verbose+ is true, +from
> -> to+ is printed.
>
> Yay! That's what I want!
>
> irb(main):001:0> File.copy("foo", "bar")
> NoMethodError: undefined method `copy' for File:Class
> from (irb):1
>
> *cry*
>
> It turns out that File.copy is defined in 'ftools', but I have no idea
> how I'm supposed to know that.
>
> Ben
>

In principle a +1 from me, but check also:

http://groups.google.de/groups?threadm=6D24974B-123E-11D9-8C3F-000A95D2DFAE...

regards,

Brian

Ben Giddings

2/17/2005 2:24:00 PM

0

On Feb 17, 2005, at 03:15, Brian Schröder wrote:
> In principle a +1 from me, but check also:
>
> http://groups.google.de/groups?threadm=6D24974B-123E...
> -000A95D2DFAE%40mac.com

Which says:

>> Excellent idea. The only problem is that, as things stand, this isn't
>> easily knowable, as the file containing the method definition may not
>> be the one that you end up requiring into your Ruby source. For
>> example, the various YAML methods are defined in files in the yaml/
>> directory, but you don't require these into your code. Instead you
>> say
>>
>> require "yaml"
>>
>> and it drags them in for you.

In principle then, the file 'yaml/foo.rb' should contain some kind of
comment saying "hey, if you want the functionality that this file
provides, require 'yaml' not this file". That way people who are
looking at that file in their favourite editor can know how to get
access to those functions. It should be possible to do that in a way
that rdoc can pick up on it, right?

Ben

Brian Schröder

2/17/2005 4:58:00 PM

0

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:24:11 +0900
Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2005, at 03:15, Brian Schröder wrote:
> > In principle a +1 from me, but check also:
> >
> > http://groups.google.de/groups?threadm=6D24974B-123E...
> > -000A95D2DFAE%40mac.com
>
> Which says:
>
> >> Excellent idea. The only problem is that, as things stand, this isn't
> >> easily knowable, as the file containing the method definition may not
> >> be the one that you end up requiring into your Ruby source. For
> >> example, the various YAML methods are defined in files in the yaml/
> >> directory, but you don't require these into your code. Instead you
> >> say
> >>
> >> require "yaml"
> >>
> >> and it drags them in for you.
>
> In principle then, the file 'yaml/foo.rb' should contain some kind of
> comment saying "hey, if you want the functionality that this file
> provides, require 'yaml' not this file". That way people who are
> looking at that file in their favourite editor can know how to get
> access to those functions. It should be possible to do that in a way
> that rdoc can pick up on it, right?
>

Yes, you could put this comment at the end of the description of each function. But this is a lot of "repeat yourself", and who wants that?

So it seems someone has to think about extending rdoc with some new meta commands, create a patch, discuss and standardize it and get it included. Sadly thats more work than I have time, so I just hope that someone else will do this. Not the nice way, but I don't see another possibility.

Regards,

Brian

Ben Giddings

2/17/2005 5:08:00 PM

0

Brian Schröder wrote:
> Yes, you could put this comment at the end of the description of each
> function. But this is a lot of "repeat yourself", and who wants that?

Would it really need to be at the beginning of each function, or could
one command at the top of the file do it?

I don't know how the internals of rdoc work at all, but it seems that
that should be possible, just some little comment at the top saying:

# To use any of the functions from this file
# require 'yaml'

> So it seems someone has to think about extending rdoc with some new
> meta commands, create a patch, discuss and standardize it and get it
> included. Sadly thats more work than I have time, so I just hope that
> someone else will do this. Not the nice way, but I don't see another
> possibility.

I don't know how rdoc works, so that might be necessary. I was looking
into customizing some rdoc output the other day, and it seemed like
there was a lot going on in there that I didn't understand.

Maybe it's time for the next big leap in rdoc functionality.

Ben