From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2002-01-27T00:05:47+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc: eval("class A; ... end")

GOTO Kentaro <gotoken@notwork.org> writes:

> In message "Re: RDoc: eval("class A; ... end")"

> Oh, that is not simple.  Maybe dynamically defined class is the source
> of complexty.  

Right now I'm looking at executing selected pieces of source code, and
then using them to generate additional source that I feed to RDoc. So,
in your example, I might have:


    #:rdoc-eval:start
    StatusMessage = {
      100, 'Continue',
      101, 'Switching Protocols',
   ....
      504, 'Gateway Timeout',
      505, 'HTTP Version Not Supported'
    }

    CodeToError = {}

    StatusMessage.each{|code, message|
      var_name = message.gsub(/[ -]/,'_').upcase
      err_name = message.gsub(/[ -]/,'')

      case code
      when 100...200; parent = Info
      when 200...300; parent = Success
      when 300...400; parent = Redirect
      when 400...500; parent = ClientError
      when 500...600; parent = ServerError
      end

 
      eval %-
        RC_#{var_name} = #{code}
          #>   # Error message: #{StatusMessage[code]
          #>   class #{err_name} < #{parent}
          #>   ends
        class #{err_name} < #{parent}
          def code; RC_#{var_name}; end 
          alias to_i code
          def reason_phrase; StatusMessage[code]; end
        end
      -
      CodeToError[code] = const_get(err_name)
    }

    #rdoc-eval:end


The lines with '#>' are like a kind of 'puts' - they inject the rest
of the line back in to the source. In this example, the first line is
the comment used to document the class, and the next two define it.

Would something like this work for people?



Dave