From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-06-12T17:15:52+01:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:03312] Re: about documentation

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:03308] Re: about documentation"
>     on 00/06/12, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
> >Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >> May I suggest that this be extended to "\n=begin <doctype>"..."\n=end"
> >> where <doctype> will be a keyword (RD, SGML, LaTeX, ...) to allow
> >> different document formats to be specified?  It would be up to each
> >> interpreter to ignore the ones it cannot handle.
> >
> >Already does it: Ruby just looks for =begin/=end followed by a space
> >or newline.
> 
> And RDtool ignore fragments like
> 
> =begin <something>
> ....
> =end
> 
> unless <something> == "" or "RD".

Excellent! I didn't spot that or I forgot it.

So, we will need a place to record such keywords and formats that have
been accepted by the Ruby community.  This is so work is not duplicated,
and the multiplicity of formats does not get out of hand.  Can a home for
this list be created at www.ruby-lang.org?

Also, it is important that from the outset these formats consist of
printable characters only.  The bi-lingual nature of Ruby development
makes this an interesting definition, but what I don't want to see is
embedded Word documents, and other such binary stuff!  Do people agree
that this is a sensible constraint?

> 
> ---
> Tosh
> Toshiro Kuwabara
> 

	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk