From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-20T23:08:23+09:00
Subject: Re: documentation as source

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 06:49 am, Florian Gross wrote:
| > 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.

True. I "under-spoke". I was thinking that it might make sure those were real 
methods too.

This get hairy though, I imagine. Markup is probably the right answer.

T.