[ruby-talk:01554] Re: rdtool documentation for library modules

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.

Toshiro Kuwabara <[e-mail]> writes:

> Sorry I don't know about NetNews well, so I post this to this ruby-talk
> instead of comp.lang.misc.

And I appreciate it ;-)

> I'll show you what RD has changed last month.
> 
>   * MethodList, new RDElement which is special type of DescList for Method
>     of Ruby(and other languages).

This all looks great.

You say that TempFile is obsolete. Is that just the method list, or
are the headings themselves wrong?

> >The reason I ask is that right now I'm documenting the library modules
> >for the book. If people want, I could transfer this same documentation
> >to the actual library source files in rd format, killing two birds
> >with one stone. If that sounds like a good idea, I just need to know
> >what format to use.
> 
> If you try to use RD for it, we will understand what isn't enough for RD.
> I'll welcome it very much. :-)

Well, we're typesetting the book using LaTeX, and we have a large
number of special macros (that do things such as insert live output
from Ruby code fragments into the text), so we won't be able to write
the book itself using rdtool. However, I was thinking that as I have
already got the documentation written, a Ruby script to convert it
from LaTeX ino rdtool shouldn't be too difficult. Then I can insert
the result into each library file.

Does this sound like a useful thing to do?

Regards


Dave