From: Lyle Johnson <jlj@...>
Date: 2002-07-23T05:45:21+09:00
Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc


"ts" <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote in message
news:200207221554.g6MFst919982@moulon.inra.fr...
> >>>>> "D" == Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:
>
> D> ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> 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.
>
> D> Could you elaborate?
>
>  This is just useless and can just add confusion.

Guy, are you against using RDoc to document the libraries and the
interpreter, or just against using it to document the interpreter? If the
latter, I would agree with you that for the most part RDoc might not be the
best way to document the interpreter's internals. It could be useful for
documenting the built-in classes, however.