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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

RDoc (Darkfish) not ordering method by name

Iñaki Baz Castillo

3/9/2009 11:27:00 PM

Hi, when I run "rdoc" Darkfish creates an HTML in which my class methods=20
appear in alphabetic order.
Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name? I would really prefer=
it=20
to respect the order in which they are written into the class.

Thanks.

=2D-=20
I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo
5 Answers

Eric Hodel

3/10/2009 12:57:00 AM

0

On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:

> Hi, when I run "rdoc" Darkfish creates an HTML in which my class =20
> methods
> appear in alphabetic order.
> Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?

It isn't possible

> I would really prefer it to respect the order in which they are =20
> written into the class.


You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores =20
sections. A future release will correct this.=

Iñaki Baz Castillo

3/12/2009 9:04:00 PM

0

El Martes, 10 de Marzo de 2009, Eric Hodel escribi=F3:
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > Hi, when I run "rdoc" Darkfish creates an HTML in which my class
> > methods
> > appear in alphabetic order.
> > Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?
>
> It isn't possible
>
> > I would really prefer it to respect the order in which they are
> > written into the class.
>
> You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores
> sections. A future release will correct this.

Thanks for clarify it.

=2D-=20
I=F1aki Baz Castillo

Clifford Heath

3/12/2009 11:08:00 PM

0

Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?
> It isn't possible
> You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores
> sections. A future release will correct this.

As a kinda- feature request, I re-open the same class in
various different subsystems, where the subsystems provide
aspects of the system that can be either required or omitted.
Perhaps a better solution would be to do that with an include,
but anyhow... I'd like to be able to separate the features of
class X that belong to each aspect... is that what sections
are for? If not, I think it'd be nice if that was somehow
possible.

With this, I'd like to see the classname and description,
then a set of aspect/section names, each with a summary
listing of the method names - each method name to jump into
a (possibly global-sorted?) list of method descriptions.

Thoughts? Would anyone else use a feature like this?

A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
can do.

Clifford Heath.

Iñaki Baz Castillo

3/12/2009 11:37:00 PM

0

El Viernes, 13 de Marzo de 2009, Clifford Heath escribi=F3:
> A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
> documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
> includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
> can do.

Yes, very useful. For example I'm building a SipUri class which is child of=
=20
GenericUri. Lots of methods are just defined for GenericUri and not overrid=
en=20
in SipUri.
Unfortunatelly RDoc (Darkfish) doesn't show non-overriden GenericUri method=
s=20
in SipUri documentation. It would be really useful.

=2D-=20
I=F1aki Baz Castillo

Eric Hodel

3/16/2009 6:48:00 PM

0

On Mar 12, 2009, at 16:12, Clifford Heath wrote:
> Eric Hodel wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?
>> It isn't possible
>> You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores =20
>> sections. A future release will correct this.
>
> As a kinda- feature request, I re-open the same class in
> various different subsystems, where the subsystems provide
> aspects of the system that can be either required or omitted.
> Perhaps a better solution would be to do that with an include,
> but anyhow... I'd like to be able to separate the features of
> class X that belong to each aspect... is that what sections
> are for? If not, I think it'd be nice if that was somehow
> possible.

You could use sections for this, yes

> A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
> documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
> includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
> can do.

Darkfish has links to included modules via the sidebar.=