[ruby-talk:00698] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

Hi,

> On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:
> >> > Thank you for your using RD and RDtool in testsupp-0.2!> \cle
> >> Thank you for providing such a great tool, Tosh! :-))))
> > 
> > What a great complaint! I'm very glad!
> 
> Only the truth to them who deserves it! :-) I had begun to do something
> similar like Perl`s Plain Old Document (POD) thing! But after looking
> to your tool, I know I need not do it forth. :-)))

thanks.
RD origined with matz. He introduced its prototype in [ruby-dev:3055],
but there is not formatter for RD except for sample/rd2html.rb. I read
[ruby-dev:3055] and came to be impressed from it. I tried using 
sample/rd2html.rb, but it had some bugs unfortunately. So, I tried to
rewrite it to learn Ruby. RDtool is my first Ruby script, except for
some very little tool which I wrote for my own need.

> But so is the Ruby world. Every time I have a good idea (IMHO, of
> course) matz, goto kentaro, or other show me, that it is already there
> ;-)

Ruby itself is very example of such situations!!:-)

> [...]
> 
> >> 	- May I propose to have a `rd2man' in future?
> > 
> > If I know about roff and man-macro, I will write rd2man for RDtool. And that
> > would not be difficult. But I don't know. uum...
> 
> Uhm too! Here we both are in the same difficulty! I had begun to write
> a `rd2troff' based on your `rdtool's, but I think, that makes no sense.
> Because man-format and troff has its differences.
> 
> Perhaps I will learn it later! But then, I know, other will already
> finished the task :-)))

I'm very glad for your plan! Many may need also rd2man too!

[...]
> So I think! The highest level used in that special document, should
> become the toplevel of the latex hierarchy. That is, because neither
> `rd2html' nor `rd2man' would use section numbering. So the document
> would looks right both in the browser and in the manpage viewer. I
> would not have to think about document hierarchy! 
> 
> I could even put that document among others. It would looks right
> erverywhere. Only not if using latex.
> 
> But I have thought my trick would solve that. If the document would be
> e.g. `testsupp.rb' and build like that:
> 
> 	rd2latex testsupp.rb > testsupp.tex
> 
> it would looks right, even if I build it as part among others like:
> 
> 	rd2latex ... rdtool.rb testsupp.rb ... > tools.html
> 
> The section numbering would be appropiate, here. The highest level of
> every document would make a toplevel in latex.
> 
> [...]

OK. I think it is good idea.
I will make rd2latex to work so. 

> > I suppose RD is too young to be written in Ruby-Manual. RDtool is much
> > younger!!(aged 6 days ...:-))
> 
> I had not known, that it is so young. I have assumed, that its only me,
> that had not detect it :-)))

You mentioned "rd2html" in [ruby-talk:0655] on 12 Aug. And I announced
first release of RDtool on same day!
How fortunate we are!!

---
Tosh