From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-07-23T05:19:23+09:00
Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc

my votes for RDoc as well. i started by using RDTool, but was floored
when i found RDoc. --there's room for improvement, but its quite the
bomb. i wonder if RDoc could be modified to understand RD markup as
well?

concerning transalation between japanese and english, is it possible to
add an option to RDoc for passing the output through babelfish? then we
could have both english and japanese for all RDocs! someone just
mentioned interfacing a ruby script with babelfish recently, so that
sparked the notion.

by the way, you can print a single frame (or save it to a file) just as
easily as you can print a whole page. the frames do not interfere with
that kind of document usage at all.

oh, one last thing: can we move the the three frames from the top to the
left hand side. i'd prefer more vertical viewing space for the
docuementation itself. (probably and easy hack, but i thought you might
want to consider it)

code safe,
~transami


On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 09:28, Dave Thomas wrote:
> Minero Aoki <aamine@mx.edit.ne.jp> writes:
> 
> >   In this thread, Nobuyoshi Nakada has noted that he had imported
> >   OptionParser (optparse.rb) to the CVS repository.  This is the
> >   preparation to bundle RDtool into the standard package.
> 
> At this risk of sounding biased... :)
> 
> I'm wondering if any consideration was given to including RDoc in the
> base distribution?
> 
> I think RDTool is a wonderful utility for creating general purpose
> documentation: if I were writing a manual I'd seriously consider using
> it. However, I personally find it quite cumbersome when using it to
> document source files: the documentation breaks up the source, and the
> documentation writer is forced to repeat much of the information that's
> in the source itself. That's why I wrote RDoc. Because it understands
> the syntax of the languages it's documenting (Ruby, C extensions, and
> Fortran currently) , it can produce meaningful output even if the
> input file contains no documentation whatsoever. If also has output
> options that are useful when working with source code (such as the
> pseudo file/module/method browser bar for quick navigation, automatic
> hyperlinks, and pop-up source code for method (just click on the
> method name).
> 
> I've put up a small compare-and-contrast page at
> 
>     http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/rd/
> 
> 
> 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
> the text from the PickAxe for the interpreter documentation and for
> many of the libraries, and the others could be added as we go along.
> 
> For this to be useful, we'd need to bundle RDoc with Ruby.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
-- 
~transami