From: "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Date: 2004-02-13T09:32:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Standard libraries


--Boundary-02=_krBLAeNjIzJSnDf
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 12 February 2004 15:26, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > 2) Make RDoc URI aware, and provide relative URLs in the documentation
> > to
> > specific test cases, and then have RDoc inline code from the tests.
>
> In that case, why not just use the existing link: syntax?

Well, because *I'd* prefer to have code segments inlined in the documentati=
on. =20
=46urthermore, link: is rather limited in what it can do: for instance, you=
=20
can't hyperlink to a specific method or line number.

If I created an inlined: syntax patch for rdoc, would you consider includin=
g=20
it?

=2D-=20
### SER  =20
### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido
### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser  jabber.com:ser  ICQ:83578737=20
### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg

--Boundary-02=_krBLAeNjIzJSnDf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBALBrkP0KxygnleI8RAurTAKDQSrF7OCqHm8gyDAPiT1rmcqWoJQCgz0LF
P/AJ4dklV7Cy5a75uMIkx3w=
=qlvN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_krBLAeNjIzJSnDf--