From: hemant <gethemant@...>
Date: 2008-09-27T17:08:04+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] darkfish-rdoc 1.1.5

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Granger <ged@faeriemud.org> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2008, at 23:23 PM, ged@FaerieMUD.org wrote:
>>
>>>
>> I love you.
>
> Aw, I'm pretty fond of you, too! :)
>
>> From the README:
>>
>>> Because of the way Rdoc and Rubygems work, there's currently no way to
>>> make the
>>> Darkfish generator available to Rdoc from the command line 'rdoc' tool if
>>> you
>>> have it installed as a gem, but if you install it as a regular Ruby
>>> library
>>> (via 'rake install'), you can do this:
>>>
>>> $ rdoc -w 4 -SHN -f darkfish -m README README lib
>>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this for the gem. Suggestions
>>> welcomed.
>>
>> I've added code to RubyGems itself to help gem authors automatically pull
>> in extensions, but it'll take another release of RDoc to implement it.
>
> Yay!
>
>> Would you consider allowing RDoc to replace its current HTML generator
>> with Darkfish?  (I did a cursory review, and it seems nice, I will need to
>> refactor the Numeric.extend to avoid pollution, though.)
>
> Of course! It still generates invalid HTML under a few circumstances I
> noticed recently, so I'd like to clean those up, but feel free to use it
> however you'd like.
>

Few small suggestions:

1. Shouldn't that search box go on the top, rather than at the bottom?
2. I would really love different image/icon for public class methods
and public instance methods, if you would agree.