[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

RDoc, gems, and documentation for dynamically generated constants

Daniel Berger

5/5/2009 3:15:00 AM

Hi,

I've got a library that dynamically generates constants the moment
it's loaded. It looks something like this at the top of the file:

['ALPHA', 'BETA', 'GAMMA'].each{ |name|
Dir.const_set(name, 1)
}

The problem is that the constants aren't documented at all when the
gem is installed. I'd like to be able to document those constants for
rubygems so that, when the library is installed I can attach a comment
to each constant.

I tried something like this:

require 'rdoc/constant'

['ALPHA', 'BETA', 'GAMMA'].each{ |name|
Dir.const_set(name, 1)
RDoc::Constant.new(name, 1, "Dynamically generated constant #
{name}")
}

But that doesn't work because rubygems doesn't actually require the
file, it just parses it, so the RDoc::Constant objects are never
generated (I think).

What's the best way to handle this, assuming it's possible?

Regards,

Dan

1 Answer

Eric Hodel

5/5/2009 7:07:00 PM

0

On May 4, 2009, at 20:14, Daniel Berger wrote:
> I've got a library that dynamically generates constants the moment
> it's loaded. It looks something like this at the top of the file:
>
> ['ALPHA', 'BETA', 'GAMMA'].each{ |name|
> Dir.const_set(name, 1)
> }
>
> The problem is that the constants aren't documented at all when the
> gem is installed. I'd like to be able to document those constants for
> rubygems so that, when the library is installed I can attach a comment
> to each constant.
>
> I tried something like this:
>
> require 'rdoc/constant'
>
> ['ALPHA', 'BETA', 'GAMMA'].each{ |name|
> Dir.const_set(name, 1)
> RDoc::Constant.new(name, 1, "Dynamically generated constant #
> {name}")
> }
>
> But that doesn't work because rubygems doesn't actually require the
> file, it just parses it, so the RDoc::Constant objects are never
> generated (I think).
>
> What's the best way to handle this, assuming it's possible?

I added support for "ghost" methods to the ruby parser in RDoc, the
same would need to be added to support constants this way.

you can search around the source for GhostMethod to get an idea, and
I'll be on IRC later today to help you out (or whenever).

It's not too difficult a feature to add, there's tests you can copy,
too.