[#2840] Changing Resolv::DNS — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>
I put out a RCR a while ago (176) that subclassed the Resolv::DNS class to
5 messages
2004/05/01
[#2853] cgi.rb: option to omit HTTP header emission — Jos Backus <jos@...>
I'm trying to use cgi.rb to write HTML-only output. This patch adds a
5 messages
2004/05/06
[#2867] ruby/dl — Jeff Mitchell <quixoticsycophant@...>
# dltest.rb
7 messages
2004/05/12
[#2878] Bug in open-uri under win32 (?) — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
4 messages
2004/05/16
[#2894] RI for distribution — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
Hi, everyone.
6 messages
2004/05/18
[#2901] test/yaml/test_yaml.rb — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hello.
2 messages
2004/05/19
[#2913] [yaml] YAML.load([1,2,3].to_yaml.to_yaml) — Jeff Mitchell <quixoticsycophant@...>
A bit contrived,
8 messages
2004/05/20
[#2926] Re: [bug] [yaml] YAML.load([1,2,3].to_yaml.to_yaml)
— "daz" <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
2004/05/23
[#2927] Re: [bug] [yaml] YAML.load([1,2,3].to_yaml.to_yaml)
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/05/23
>>>>> "d" == daz <dooby@d10.karoo.co.uk> writes:
[#2928] Syck CVS (was Re: [bug] [yaml] YAML.load([1,2,3].to_yaml.to_yaml))
— why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
2004/05/23
ts wrote:
[#2929] Re: Syck CVS (was Re: [bug] [yaml] YAML.load([1,2,3].to_yaml.to_yaml))
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/05/23
>>>>> "w" == why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> writes:
[#2918] fixed SIG_SEGV in check_stack() in eval.c — b g <bg_rubyposter_123456@...>
I was getting a crash at 'JUMP_TAG(state);' in
6 messages
2004/05/22
[#2938] -Wstrict-prototypes for extensions — Jeff Mitchell <quixoticsycophant@...>
6 messages
2004/05/25
Re: RI for distribution
From:
"Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>
Date:
2004-05-19 01:20:57 UTC
List:
ruby-core #2898
> > On May 18, 2004, at 17:20, Gavin Sinclair wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, 4:59:58 AM, why wrote: >> >>> Hi, everyone. >> >>> I'd like to start checking in some RDoc for a bunch of YAML modules. >>> Am >>> I okay to add these files into the lib/.document file listing? I'd >>> like >>> to document every class in my set. Is that overkill? >> >> In a sense it's overkill, but it doesn't matter; the more the merrier. >> Just make sure you provide a good introduction in the obvious place >> (or introduce a README file) so casual users can get the information >> they need quickly. > > Gavin/Why: > > I don't think this is in the spirit of the thing. > > 'ri' is for end users of packages, and so should really only document > the classes and methods of interest to them. I wouldn't want to see > internal classes included in the standard 'ri' set that comes with > Ruby: I think this would only confuse things. I certainly agree. > Also, when it comes to README files -- I think the best thing to do is > to :include: them in the comment for your top-level class. That way > people browsing the source can find them, and people using RDoc/ri will > also be able to benefits from all that wisdom. Yes, good point. I'll try to do that with some existing libraries. Cheers, Gavin