Re: [doc] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc.

Johan Holmberg wrote:

> I realize now that there are several differences in the HTML
> output from RDoc for Ruby-methods and C-methods:
> [...]
> Would it be a good thing to add, making it possible to fine-tune the
> "synopsis" of a Ruby-method ?
> I tend to think so.

Actually I would also welcome a way to document methods that aren't
there (for RDoc):

I'm creating a bunch of methods automatically via very dynamic
.define_method calls and of course RDoc can't understand that.

Unfortunately this also means that I have no good way of documenting them.

It would be great if there was a directive for adding arbitrary methods.
(Maybe this can already be done with the proposed call-seq directive?)

A friend of mine who is doing an C(++)-extension bridge between his
not-so-small C++ library and Ruby doesn't want to clutter up his low
level code with descriptions of the Ruby interface and would thus be
able to make good use of this as well.

If there's already suitable workarounds that don't involve creating lots
of method stubs or if there are any comments about my request I would
love to hear about them.

Regards,
Florian Gross