[#3113] Problem in RSS library, or problem in my blog :) — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've been trying to use the new RSS library to parse a number of
7 messages
2004/07/01
[#3136] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/05
[#3162] Re: [doc-patch] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/09
Hello.
[#3170] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
2004/07/10
[#3172] Re: [doc-patch] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/12
Hello.
[#3141] rexml/validation/validationexception is missing. — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
5 messages
2004/07/06
[#3154] Nonblocking socket connect - Win32 - 181 — "Jean-Francois Nadeau" <jean-francois.nadeau@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2004/07/08
[#3167] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc. — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/09
[#3168] Re: [doc] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc.
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/09
[#3171] binding a URL to a label in RDoc — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
6 messages
2004/07/12
[#3199] Trying to understand \G — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm being silly again, but I can't get \G to work with String.index. If
12 messages
2004/07/16
[#3213] Typo and grammar/style fixes for ext/win32ole/win32ole.c — Jos Backus <jos@...>
The attached patch attempts to create a more consistent style for error
4 messages
2004/07/19
[#3216] Re: Incident Analysis of the intrusion on helium.ruby-lang.org May 2004 — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2004/07/21
[#3228] Core support for Gems, and namespace — "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
Hi all,
21 messages
2004/07/27
[#3229] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/27
[#3232] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#3233] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/27
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:48:07 AM, Luke wrote:
[#3235] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
[#3230] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:08 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3234] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:
[#3238] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:14:29 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3243] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/28
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 3:23:46 AM, Austin wrote:
[#3248] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:29:53 +0900, Gavin Sinclair
[#3249] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:29:53AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
Re: [doc] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc.
From:
Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Date:
2004-07-12 19:28:08 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3176
On Jul 12, 2004, at 14:03, Johan Holmberg wrote: > I don't know enough about the RDoc markup, but as far as I > understand, the documentation of a Ruby-method can't have a > "call-seq" entry (overriding the automatically generated info). > Call-seq for Ruby methods was added this morning :) > What would be in the "spirit" of RDoc ? In general I'd avoid call-seq unless the documentation was unclear without it. RDoc documentation is supposed to contain almost no explicit markup, and I'm resisting the temptation to add more. In this particular case, several folks made a good case for call-seq, but in general I'd rather see it used sparingly. Cheers Dave