From: Florian Gross <flgr@...>
Date: 2004-10-20T19:49:18+09:00
Subject: Re: documentation as source

trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:

> On Tuesday 19 October 2004 04:44 pm, Florian Gross wrote:
> | trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> | > But perhaps Mauricio was intending to get rid of the indentation too? In
> | > fact I was wondering about that. How does it know code from comment? What
> | > about something like this:
> | >
> | >   # Presents a challenge
> | >   # ex--
> | >   #
> | >   #   challenge option
> | >   #
> | >   # There are three options:
> | >   #
> | >   #   jump
> | >   #   sit
> | >   #   stand
> | >   #
> | >   def challenge( option )
> | >     # ...
> | >   end
> |
> | Currently it doesn't. Everything that is indented is assumed to be code.
> | If you can think of an algorithm that works better than I would be
> | pleased to know about it.
> 
> Well I'm not sure what your doing presently. You could require an indented 
> remark.
> 
> But I suppose a better option would be more intelligent. What about first 
> syntax parsing the indented material. If no syntax errors, then good chance 
> it's Ruby code.

But even your example from above would pass the Syntax Parsing step. And 
I think that one might even get false negatives, not only false positives.