Nabble - ruby-doc

could some patches to trunk rdoc's be looked at?

2009-10-31T15:26:21Z

Here's a few patches for trunk if they could be looked at:

http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2320
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2318
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2188
Thanks!
-r

new version of rdoc?

2009-10-26T14:33:57Z

Would it be possible to push a new release of the rdoc gem? It
appears a couple of bugs in parsing core are fixed in trunk but not in
the latest released version.
Thanks!
-r

Re: duplicated methods?

2009-10-21T09:09:00Z

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Roger Pack wrote:

> $ ri Object
> ...
> prepare_wc_input, pretty, pretty_print, pretty_print_cycle, print,
> printHeader, print_full_board, print_profile, print_results,
> private_methods, proc_call, proc_return1, proc_return2,
> proc_return3, proc_return4, proc_yield, program_name, prompt,
> protected_methods, prunable, public_methods, public_send, puts, r,
> r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
> r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
> r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
> raise_if_conflict, reject, release, remove, require_relative,
> respond_to?, revcomp, rl, rm, rmdir, ruby2html, ruby_exec,
> ruby_exec, runfile, save, search, send, separator, server, server,
> set_cbreak, set_valid_byte_pattern, setpiece, setup, shift_test,
>
> repeats? a method r?
>
> Is this expected?
> Thanks.
> -r
>

reject, release, rmdir suggests you are looking at more than core
ruby. I can't remember how to determine where (usually gems, IIRC)
the other methods come from.... Oh,
ri -i Object
should give you an interactive mode where you can explore this.

HTH
Hugh

duplicated methods?

2009-10-21T08:57:48Z

$ ri Object
...
prepare_wc_input, pretty, pretty_print, pretty_print_cycle, print,
printHeader, print_full_board, print_profile, print_results,
private_methods, proc_call, proc_return1, proc_return2,
proc_return3, proc_return4, proc_yield, program_name, prompt,
protected_methods, prunable, public_methods, public_send, puts, r,
r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r,
raise_if_conflict, reject, release, remove, require_relative,
respond_to?, revcomp, rl, rm, rmdir, ruby2html, ruby_exec,
ruby_exec, runfile, save, search, send, separator, server, server,
set_cbreak, set_valid_byte_pattern, setpiece, setup, shift_test,

repeats? a method r?

Is this expected?
Thanks.
-r

(no subject)

2009-10-16T09:52:54Z

Unsubscribe

2009-10-16T09:18:13Z

Unsubscribe

Re: move source to github?

2009-10-16T08:53:17Z

> You might want to try using, well, basically any other distributed VCS
> (e.g. Monotone, Mercurial or Bazaar). You'll discover that Git has a
> horrible and confusing UI compared to almost all the others (*), and
> that the others can do all the really useful stuff that Git does.

Agreed, but it does have the momentum, and github.

-r

Re: move source to github?

2009-10-13T11:37:53Z

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 14:18, Tim Harper <timcharper@...> wrote:
> git has it's interface warts. But sucky? Relative to what? Git has been a
> fantastic tool (over subversion / CVS / Microsoft Sourcesafe)

You might want to try using, well, basically any other distributed VCS
(e.g. Monotone, Mercurial or Bazaar). You'll discover that Git has a
horrible and confusing UI compared to almost all the others (*), and
that the others can do all the really useful stuff that Git does.

See also
http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2007/12/08/limbo-why-users-are-more-error-prone-with-git-than-other-vcses/
http://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks/

Sure, Git might be better than SVN, CVS and SourceSafe. That's like
saying that Perl is better than shell script.

mathew
[ (*) Arch is the exception. ]
--
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>

Re: custom version of rdoc with gems?

2009-10-13T08:39:04Z

> all gem executables:
> rdoc _2.2.2_ ...
> rdoc _2.3_ ...

Yeah...that has potential actually.
I was originally asking if the gem command [which uses rdoc
internally] had a way of specifying which rdoc version to use
internally.
-r

Re: custom version of rdoc with gems?

2009-10-13T08:31:01Z

oh, in that case, there's a standard way of specifying gem version to use in all gem executables:

rdoc _2.2.2_ ...

rdoc _2.3_ ...

check out the installed executable, the code for it is right there at the top.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Tim Harper <timcharper@...> wrote:
> What? You can install multiple versions of rdoc?

LOL.
$ gem install rdoc -v2.2.2
$ gem install rdoc -v2.3

That's what I mean :)
-r

Re: custom version of rdoc with gems?

2009-10-13T08:27:07Z

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Tim Harper <timcharper@...> wrote:
> What? You can install multiple versions of rdoc?

LOL.
$ gem install rdoc -v2.2.2
$ gem install rdoc -v2.3

That's what I mean :)
-r

Re: custom version of rdoc with gems?

2009-10-13T08:14:57Z

What? You can install multiple versions of rdoc?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> wrote:

Anyone know if it's possible to specify a version of rdoc to use to do
the rdoc'ing for a gem?

gem rdoc gem_name # use rdoc 2.2.2
?
Thanks!
-r

custom version of rdoc with gems?

2009-10-13T07:50:30Z

Anyone know if it's possible to specify a version of rdoc to use to do
the rdoc'ing for a gem?

gem rdoc gem_name # use rdoc 2.2.2
?
Thanks!
-r

exception running rdoc against itself

2009-10-09T07:57:30Z

The internal error was:

c:/ruby18/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rdoc-2.4.4/lib/rdoc/parser/ruby.rb:916:in
`parse_method': undefined local variable or method `added_container'
for #<RDoc::Parser::Ruby:0x3cdd208> (NameError)
from c:/ruby18/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rdoc-2.4.4/lib/rdoc/parser/ruby_tools.rb:135:in
`token_listener'
from c:/ruby18/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rdoc-2.4.4/lib/rdoc/parser/ruby.rb:910:in
`parse_method'
from c:/ruby18/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rdoc-2.4.4/lib/rdoc/parser/ruby.rb:1122:in
`parse_statements'

also (unrelated) when I run rake install_gem I get this

rdoc-2.4.4/test/xref_test_case.rb
Successfully built RubyGem
Name: rdoc
Version: 2.4.4
File: rdoc-2.4.4.gem
mv rdoc-2.4.4.gem pkg/rdoc-2.4.4.gem
gem install minitest --version '~> 1.3'
ERROR: While executing gem ... (ArgumentError)
Illformed requirement ["~"]
rake aborted!
Command failed with status (1): [gem install minitest --version '~> 1.3'...]

Tasks: TOP => install_gem => check_extra_deps
(See full trace by running task with --trace)

I can assume these are bugs?
Thanks.
-r

Re: multi word url's?

2009-10-09T07:55:41Z

>> can that be a multi word, like
>> "the
>> msdn"[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry.asp]
>
> ri RDoc | grep -A 10 "Example hyperlinks"

Thanks--not sure how I missed those.
-r

"No Time for Docs at RubyConf 2009"

2009-10-05T12:16:51Z

FYI, I've just posted a blog entry

"No Time for Docs at RubyConf 2009"
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog/archives/001700.html

If anyone wants to help put together a DocuBOF, let me know...

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume rdm@...
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development

Re: move source to github?

2009-10-04T11:08:07Z

Unsubscribe

On 9/29/09, Eric Hodel <drbrain@...> wrote:

> On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
>> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
>
> I don't see how it's easier.
>
> You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from
> repository.
>
> You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.
>
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

official standard for documentation style?

2009-09-29T13:44:19Z

Just wondering if there's any official docu style for core patches...
I see one mentioned for C but not for Ruby.

Is it

#
# description
#
def something
end

or

##
# description
#
def something
end

or something along those lines?
Just wanted to check.
Thanks.
-r

Re: move source to github?

2009-09-29T12:18:49Z

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> wrote:

On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:46 , Roger Pack wrote:

The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
repository.

Compared to checking out, working, and sending in a patch? no... it really isn't easier. At best, it is equivalent. At worst, it is a lot of extra mentarbation for no tangible benefit.

Git got popular in the last year or so thanks in part to github... Last I checked, there was a TON of open (and otherwise) source development being done for the 20+ years before that without it and we got along just fine. In my case, I got along better in part because git is a really sucky tool and because there was less software/tool/process dogma/zealotry by a measurable amount.

git has it's interface warts. But sucky? Relative to what? Git has been a fantastic tool (over subversion / CVS / Microsoft Sourcesafe) and has helped me to better manage collaborative open source development projects.

Once again, not taking a position on whether I think rdoc would be better on github. But I have personally loved git and github, and am trying to understand how someone could label them as "sucky" tools. True open source development occurred before, but for me personally it has made open source contribution MUCH easier.

Re: move source to github?

2009-09-29T12:01:37Z

On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:46 , Roger Pack wrote:

> The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
> branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
> repository.

Compared to checking out, working, and sending in a patch? no... it
really isn't easier. At best, it is equivalent. At worst, it is a lot
of extra mentarbation for no tangible benefit.

Git got popular in the last year or so thanks in part to github...
Last I checked, there was a TON of open (and otherwise) source
development being done for the 20+ years before that without it and we
got along just fine. In my case, I got along better in part because
git is a really sucky tool and because there was less software/tool/
process dogma/zealotry by a measurable amount.

Re: move source to github?

2009-09-29T11:46:26Z

>> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
>> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?
>
> I don't see how it's easier.
>
> You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from repository.
>
> You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.

True it takes more key strokes to commit to the central repository
(though you could probably wrap it in a script to make it a one
liner).

The easiness I was referring to was being able to work on your own
branch until your branch is ready for a pull request back to the main
repository.

Thanks!
-r

Re: move source to github?

2009-09-29T11:19:13Z

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@...> wrote:

On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:

Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?

I don't see how it's easier.

You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from repository.

You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.

I'm not taking a position on one side or the other, but I do see a lot of benefit for open source projects to use github. For example, I like the network view that github provides, and also it's great to be able to link to a section of code at a specific version. It seems to provide a favorable environment that fosters contribution.

As far as using git, I see your point about it being the same amount of commands. Git is easy to use without github. By more commits to commit your work to the repository, are you referring to you would need to push to two git repos instead of one?

Tim

Re: move source to github?

2009-09-29T10:10:40Z

On Sep 17, 2009, at 05:03, Roger Pack wrote:

> Any chance we could have a main branch of the source for rdoc on
> github, for slightly easier access? Is it there already anywhere?

I don't see how it's easier.

You have to type the same amount of commands to check out from
repository.

You have to type more commands to commit your work to the repository.

Re: old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-29T10:09:00Z

On Sep 22, 2009, at 15:14, Roger Pack wrote:

> Question.
> Does this "old style" rdoc
>
> # Write ((|data|)) to a registry value named ((|name|)).
>
> Have an equivalent (data and name were parameters).

This has never been an RDoc style syntax.

You're probably thinking about RDtool

Re: multi word url's?

2009-09-29T10:06:29Z

On Sep 22, 2009, at 15:10, Roger Pack wrote:

> Question on rdoc syntax:
> currently we can do
>
> msdn[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/
> registry.asp]
>
> for a link there
>
> can that be a multi word, like
> "the msdn"[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry.asp
> ]

ri RDoc | grep -A 10 "Example hyperlinks"

Re: how to document dynamic methods

2009-09-29T10:05:33Z

On Sep 22, 2009, at 14:56, Roger Pack wrote:

> Is there an example anywhere of how to document dynamic methods which
> aren't actually created yet?

ri RDoc::Parser::Ruby

Re: rdoc directives?

2009-09-29T10:03:55Z

On Sep 22, 2009, at 13:56, Roger Pack wrote:
> I see a list of rdoc directives in rdoc's rdoc, however they don't
> seem all inclusive--is there a better list anywhere?
> Also should I submit patches directly to core or to this group? I
> assume filing them with redmine AND posting about them here is best?

Submitting them to the RDoc tracker is best.

patch for struct#members

2009-09-26T03:07:48Z

Dear Team,
It seems struct#members is incorrect for ruby 1.9. It says "Returns an array of strings" while it actually returns Symbols. The example given there is correct "joe.members #=> [:name, :address, :zip]".

Here's patch for that.
rdoc-1.9-struct-members.patch
thanks,
Gergo

Re: old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-23T02:33:34Z

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Ryan Davis wrote:

>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 15:58 , Roger Pack wrote:
>
> > Or did you mean comb through the source trying to find things? I
> > hoped that wouldn't be necessary...
>
> why is that? you're a developer. act like one.
>

Maybe because if it can't be found on the web, then it's likely to
be a manual process, which developers don't like?

I think the answer to the multi-word hyperlink question, from my
reading of lib/rdoc/markup.rb is "put it in braces". Untested.

I can't see the answer to the other one.

Hugh
>

Re: old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-22T23:07:59Z

On Sep 22, 2009, at 15:58 , Roger Pack wrote:

> Or did you mean comb through the source trying to find things? I
> hoped that wouldn't be necessary...

why is that? you're a developer. act like one.

Re: old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-22T15:58:29Z

> Why didn't you try to find the answers before start sending hundred of
> e-mails to the list?

Sorry for the flood--I did indeed do my best with google for each one
[and even created some short tutorials for those with answer]
http://wiki.github.com/rogerdpack/ruby_code_tutorials/rdoc

Or did you mean comb through the source trying to find things? I
hoped that wouldn't be necessary...
Obrigado.
-r

Re: old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-22T15:21:29Z

Roger Pack,

Why didn't you try to find the answers before start sending hundred of e-mails to the list?

Thanks!

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> wrote:

Question.
Does this "old style" rdoc

# Write ((|data|)) to a registry value named ((|name|)).

Have an equivalent (data and name were parameters).
Thanks!
-r

--
Regards,

Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso
cel.: (11) 8187-8662
blog: rubz.org
engineer student at maua.br

"If you wanna be successful, you need total dedication, go for your last limit and give your best"

old style has a modern equivalent?

2009-09-22T15:14:04Z

Question.
Does this "old style" rdoc

# Write ((|data|)) to a registry value named ((|name|)).

Have an equivalent (data and name were parameters).
Thanks!
-r

multi word url's?

2009-09-22T15:10:49Z

Question on rdoc syntax:
currently we can do

msdn[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry.asp]

for a link there

can that be a multi word, like
"the msdn"[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry.asp]

through any means?
Thanks.
-r

how to document dynamic methods

2009-09-22T14:56:07Z

Is there an example anywhere of how to document dynamic methods which
aren't actually created yet?
Thanks.
-r