From: Minero Aoki <aamine@...>
Date: 2002-07-23T01:35:09+09:00
Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc


  In mail "Re: rdtool and rdoc"
    Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:

> > So... A suggestion. I'd like to propose RDoc as the tool used to
> > document Ruby libraries and the Ruby interpreter itself. We could use

> I think this is an intriguing idea.
> 
> How does RDoc handle multiple languages, though?  I think for your
> suggestion to work, it would have to make sure that there are at least
> english and japanese docs.  As Ruby grows, documenation in more and more
> languages would be wanted.  If you stick with inline documentation, then
> eventually you will end up with more documentation than code.

Matz is requiring standard library must contains English document,
and must contains only English document. (I had been opposed to it
strongly, but was rejected.)  So we need not to worry about it.

Privately saying, net/*.rb might not use rdoc, just because the
current management system of Japanese documents requires RD format.
But if I write the new system, I'll select rdoc. Maintaining embedded
RD is too hard.

-- Minero Aoki