From: "Ara.T.Howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2005-11-17T03:22:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Metaprogramming and rdoc

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Hans  Fugal wrote:

> I find myself metaprogramming in ruby more and more. I think this is a
> good thing. It also has the unfortunate side effect of pitting me
> against my old friend rdoc. I want to document the methods, but rdoc
> has no clue that they even exist. Is there some middle ground, or must
> one just put it in the class's blurb, or give in to not
> metaprogramming?
>
> A simple example:
>
> Class Foo
>  # Methods that do just about the same thing
>  %w{foo bar baz quux}.each do |m|
>    eval "def #{m}(*args); something_interesting(m.to_sym,*args); end"
>  end
> end
>
> Rdoc of course knows nothing, but I may have something interesting to
> say about this group of methods as a whole.

put a hook into your methods that spews out a docstring into a file.  run your
tests, then run rdoc over this file.  take the hook out.

another approach

   #
   # doccumentation
   #
   def meta_methods
     # empty
   end

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] gmail [dot] com
| all happiness comes from the desire for others to be happy.  all misery
| comes from the desire for oneself to be happy.
| -- bodhicaryavatara
===============================================================================