From: marcandre-ruby-core@... Date: 2020-07-27T19:22:48+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:99358] [Ruby master Misc#17053] RDoc for Hash Keys Issue #17053 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune). burdettelamar@yahoo.com (Burdette Lamar) wrote: > My view has been this: This is API reference documentation. Ruby/ruby should have *the reference documentation*, and therefore should omit nothing. This is a very ambitious goal I'm not sure I share completely. Taking for example the documentation for `Hash`, one would need to talk about covariance of methods returning a hash (i.e. `Class.new(Hash).new.select{}.class` vs `Class.new(Hash).new.merge({}).class`), of treatment of a key `Float::NAN` (which is not `eql?` to itself), of recursive hashes, of the arity of enumerators (see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14015#note-8 ), of the performance of hash lookup / insertion... All these details can not be repeated for each method, the same way we can't quote in full the floating point standard for `Float#+` and repeat it for `Float#-`, etc. On that subject, an example with `0.1 + 0.2` might be helpful though. ---------------------------------------- Misc #17053: RDoc for Hash Keys https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17053#change-86758 * Author: burdettelamar@yahoo.com (Burdette Lamar) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- @marcandre writes, about the Hash Rdoc at https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Hash.html#class-Hash-label-Hash+Keys : > The only thing I would change is that I would shorten the doc on the "Invalid Hash Keys". As far as I know, this is simply not a important concern as nearly all Ruby objects respond_to? :hash and :eql? > I personally would recommend adding a single example in the Hash.html#class-Hash-label-Hash+Keys section and I would remove the rest, or at least remove the examples. They burden the reader with something that is of no use to them. I have misgivings: * Some of this material is very old, like the text and example for user-defined hash keys. * Some material I consolidated from earlier doc for individual methods, which now link to the relevant sections. * All is factual, and not repeated elsewhere in the page. My view has been this: This is API reference documentation. Ruby/ruby should have *the reference documentation*, and therefore should omit nothing. If material such as this is to be included, I see three possibilities: * Include in-line, as now. * Link to on-page 'footnote', with Back link. * Link to off-page rdoc, likely in doc/ dir. I'd love to hear some opinions on this. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: