From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2009-02-13T03:08:34+09:00
Subject: Re: docstrings

--00163646c13c1765770462bca0ea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > Since docstrings, like rdoc comments have to appear in the source code,
> > I
> > don't understand how they help documenting code which is dynamically
> > generated when the program is run.
> >
> > In my current project, I recently switched over from dynamicly defined
> > methods to a rake task to generate some of the source code in order to
> > have
> > the resulting methods documented with RDOC/RI.
>
> I do like the current ri style, and it does 90% of what I'm asking for.
>
> So the question is what benefit is gained with dynamic documentation
> over ri style comments?
>
> The two goals I'd have are 1) quick lookup from irb
> Ex:
> Currently ruby does not have a
> method.desc
> command.
>

See below


>
> and also documentation for dynamically generated methods.  As you noted
> above, it requires extra work.  Rails, for example, cannot enumerate all
> its possible dynamic methods.
>
> Is there a way in rdoc to describe dynamically generated methods?


I don't think so, perhaps Eric Hodel can confirm or deny this.

>
>
> The first goal is the most important, now that I think about it.
>
> I could create a gem which include "irb fastri" lookup [1].


No need to create a gem, you just put the code from the eigenclass article
into ~/.irbrc and bob's yer uncle.

>
> -=r
> [1] http://eigenclass.org/hiki/irb+ri+completion
>
>

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale

--00163646c13c1765770462bca0ea--