From: Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Date: 2000-08-09T04:01:28-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:04370] Re: DRY and embedded docs.

Hi,

"Hal E. Fulton" wrote:
> 
> Your premises are correct, but I disagree with your
> conclusions... :)
> 
> When a usage message is printed, efficiency matters
> very little. Milliseconds are insignificant when the user
> is expected to spend several seconds visually scanning
> the output...
> 
> Of course, it might be considered a little inelegant. There
> might still be A Better Way...
> 
> Hal
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@yb3.so-net.ne.jp>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 10:03 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:04354] Re: DRY and embedded docs.
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "[ruby-talk:04353] Re: DRY and embedded docs."
> >     on 00/08/08, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
> > >I think the latter would be nice. Perhaps it should look for an entry
> > >such as
> > >
> > >  = Usage
> > >
> > >and just format that. That way, you could just output the usage
> > >section of a larger RD document.
> > >
> > >
> > >What do people think?
> >
> > Printing Usage message is one of user interface, so a program
> > should print it as quickly as possible, but RDtool way of
> > parsing RD is highly costed, maybe.

I'm not familiar with all the formatting features, but is included files
one of them? Also, what if you have multiple "= Usage" entries (perhaps
with the relevant code)? Would they be concatenated? In a large
multi-file program, such types of processing might take a noticeable
amount of time. JM2CW

-- 
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)