From: Thomas Sondergaard <tsondergaard@...>
Date: 2002-07-23T01:00:15+09:00
Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc

On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 17:33, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "D" == Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:
> 
> D> So... A suggestion. I'd like to propose RDoc as the tool used to
> D> document Ruby libraries and the Ruby interpreter itself.
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>  Not a good idea, for me.

Why not?

I have never tried rdtool, but using RDoc has been a breeze exactly
because it produces useful output even if there is no inline
documentation at all (as stated somewhere else in this thread, by the
author). I have later added some inline documentation where it is most
needed in my own modules, but not many places. Without a dought (imho)
RDoc's strongest feature is that it really helps reduce the amount of
duplicated knowledge in the documentation.

Cheers,

Thomas