From: GOTO Kentaro <gotoken@...>
Date: 2002-01-27T07:56:05+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc: eval("class A; ... end")

In message "Re: RDoc: eval("class A; ... end")"
    on Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:05:47 +0900,
    Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

>     #:rdoc-eval:start
....
>       eval %-
>         RC_#{var_name} = #{code}
>           #>   # Error message: #{StatusMessage[code]
>           #>   class #{err_name} < #{parent}
>           #>   ends
>         class #{err_name} < #{parent}
....
>     #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.

It looks nice.  I'm guessing that its binding would be established by
a region from #:rdoc-eval:begin to #:rdoc-eval:end.  Is this right?
Are these bindings shared by more than two chunks of :rdoc-eval:?

> Would something like this work for people?

Something to refer to other files for foreign symbols may be helpful. 
Or, I should use `require' in :rdoc-eval: simply, maybe. 

-- Gotoken