[#2748] Proposal: New Bignum — "Evan Webb" <evan@...>
During some experiments with ruby cryptography, I found some problems with
11 messages
2004/04/06
[#2749] Re: Proposal: New Bignum
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/04/06
Hi,
[#2764] RDoc :enddoc: — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found that RDoc document some method after :enddoc:. Is it
7 messages
2004/04/10
[#2788] Problems building ext/io/wait.c in 1.8 branch — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
I can't get io/wait installed. The main problem is that it doesn't
6 messages
2004/04/17
[#2799] Re: Problems building ext/io/wait.c in 1.8 branch
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/04/21
On Saturday, April 17, 2004, 4:42:14 PM, Gavin wrote:
[#2800] Re: Problems building ext/io/wait.c in 1.8 branch
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/04/21
>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
[#2801] Re: Problems building ext/io/wait.c in 1.8 branch
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/04/21
On Thursday, April 22, 2004, 1:21:29 AM, ts wrote:
[#2805] Bug 1318 — Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
Any comments on
9 messages
2004/04/23
[#2814] Tempfile strangeness in 1.9.0 — Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
I didn't open a bug for this because it's from the CVS head, but it
5 messages
2004/04/24
Re: RDoc generates a dangling hyperlink with :stopdoc without :startdoc:
From:
Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date:
2004-04-11 10:49:34 UTC
List:
ruby-core #2771
On Sunday, April 11, 2004, 2:12:12 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2004, at 10:15, Tanaka Akira wrote:
>> For example, RDoc generates a hyperlink to classes/M.html which is not
>> exists as follows.
>>
>> % cat a.rb
>> module M
>> def m1() end
>>
>> # :stopdoc:
>>
>> def m2() end
>> end
> Hmm... Here I'm not sure what to do. I suspect that I really should
> change the definition of :stopdoc: so that it _does_ document the
> module and m1, but not m2. That way there'll be context for m1().
> However, at the back of my mind I remember that someone asked for the
> current behavior.
> Can anyone see any good reason why I shouldn't change RDoc so that
> :stodoc: just applies to elements within a class or module, and not the
> class or module itself?
No, I think that's a good idea.
Intuitively, to me, :stopdoc: should _only_ apply to the rest of the
current scope. That is, given the code below, all methods except
M1::m2 should be documented.
module M1
def m1() end
# :stopdoc:
def m2() end
end
module M2
def m1() end
def m2() end
end
In fact, that's exactly what happens :)
(Except, of course, the problem Tanaka-san pointed out: when you
select "m1 (M1)" from the "Methods" frame, you get a bum steer.)
By the way, if you put :enddoc: instead of :stopdoc: in the above
code, everything works.
So why do we need :enddoc: again?
Gavin