From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2006-01-13T17:19:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
> ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
> > > But what will the user see from ri and rdoc?
> > nothing.  i've found myself using them less and less - at this point i use
> > them about once per month.  my feeling is that
> >   vi -o samples/*
> > is much more powerful.
> For a certain subset of Ruby developers.
> ...

In order to entrench the tests-as-documentation habit firmly in the Ruby 
community, we need a catchy acronym. Like RTFUT = Read the Fabulous Unit 
Tests!

> Oh, I agree.  I want to see more examples and tests included as well,
> but there needs to be some form of easily-accessible doc set to
> accompany with binary-only Ruby packages (e.g., the Windows "1-click").

Is there a way for code to get automatically included by rdoc and counted 
as doc without having it in two places in the source code? I mean code 
that would get run when loading a library. That way, doing "ri MyStuff" 
could display the contract for MyStuff, supposing that it's in the same 
file as the implementation.

However I suppose that doing it for unit-tests (that are presumably in a
separate file) isn't supported... yet.

 _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - t�l:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr�al QC Canada