From: Matt Armstrong <matt+dated+1009039642.195828@...>
Date: 2001-12-18T01:47:26+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28795] Re: RDoc - Document Ruby source files

Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

> "Christian Boos" <cboos@bct-technology.com> writes:
>
>>  Why not? :)
>> 
>> Some kind of combination of chroot() to launch an auxilliary
>> interpreter in a sandbox, and drb (distributed Ruby) to connect
>> that application, then it can well self_destruct whatever it wants :)
>
> Because then it won't run in the environment in which it will
> finally run, and hence I still won't be able to deduce all the stuff
> I need to.
>
> I can't see any way that a documentation tool can execute a program
> in order to be able to build the runtime class model. I'd love to be
> shown to be wrong, because then I'll incorporate the feature.

Yes, this can get arbitrarily complex for a dynamic language like
Ruby.  Some classes may or may not be created based on certain
conditions, etc.

I think time is better spent developing a way to describe such classes
to rdoc in a straightforward "simple markup" way, rather than getting
too fancy.

-- 
matt