From: Matt Armstrong <matt@...>
Date: 2002-02-05T03:56:30+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc parsing error

Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

> TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@rubycolor.org> writes:
>
>> > > In addition, one request. I've write 'Foo::Bar#baz' for instance
>> > > method 'bar' of Foo::Bar class. I'll be happy if RDoc recognize
>> > > this.
>> > 
>> > This turns out to be trickier - I'm trying to work out how to do it.
>> 
>> Is this notation problematic?  If so, I'll use other one which
>> you recommend.
>
> It isn't the notation. Right now, cross references are not very
> clever: they find methods locally. To support Foo::Bar#baz, I'll
> need to knit together the internal representations of classes and
> modules a bit better. THis is something I want to do anyway, but I
> need to clear some free time to do it.

Supporting Foo::Bar#baz (and linking to that method) would be cool.

I've also found cases where multiple classes in the same file with
identical method names could confuse RDoc -- you'd use #foo in a
comment in one class and get the #foo of another class, etc.  With the
knitting you describe above, RDoc would hopefully get it right.


-- 
matt