From: John Wilger <johnwilger@...>
Date: 2004-12-03T23:20:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby documentation.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:59:25 +0900, Stefan Lang <langstefan@gmx.at> wrote:
> Documentation of some standard modules could be better, like e.g. REXML,
> but perhaps I haven't looked at the right places for it...

Of course, one of the great things about Ruby is that---after you have
grepped the basic syntax---when documentation is lacking, the source
code is generally easy enough to understand that you don't really need
the documentation anyway. Granted, this doesn't mean that we don't
need more/better docs on a lot of the code out there, but it speaks
volumes about the beauty of the Ruby language itself.

Also, I've found that (when I can't find "official" documentation)
simply running RDoc over a module is a good place to start. Depending
on how well the code is commented, you might not get a lot of
examples/usage instructions, but it does make a handy way to quickly
browse the source code and see what is related to what.

-- 
Regards,
John Wilger

-----------
Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland