From: Dossy Date: 2002-07-23T04:29:06+09:00 Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc On 2002.07.23, David Douthitt wrote: > Also, programmers SHOULD write documentation - and keep it up to date. No, programmers SHOULD write programs, by the very definition of the word "programmer" being "one who programs." I vote for RDoc, completely. However, I do agree with you completely that the frames nonsense needs to go away, or be an option that has to be turned on. Frames was probably the worst decision the W3C could have ever made to allow into the specification. I like RDoc because I can, without any extra work on my part, point it at my source and have it generate documentation. If the code isn't written well, the RDoc will not be very sensible or useful: that's a smell that my code stinks, not that I should be annotating it with inline RDoc comments. Good class name choices, logical object hierarchy, appropriate method names and methods that do one thing well (and expose what that "one thing" is by its method name) are all good goals for code writing. Code written this way, when passed through RDoc, shouldn't need much documentation outside of the code itself. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@panoptic.com Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)