From: Daniel Berger <djberge@...>
Date: 2003-10-02T04:24:34+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Include CONFIG::Config['rubydocdir'] in rbconfig.rb

"Ara.T.Howard" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "[RCR] Include CONFIG::Config['rubydocdir'] in rbconfig.rb"
> >     on 03/10/01, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
> >
> > |Summary: if Ruby had a standard documentation directory, then
> > |installers could install documentation there.  A typical Ruby
> > |installation does contain documentation in a sensible place, but this
> > |location is not retrievable through the normal Config['xyz']
> > |mechanism.
> >
> > Currently it does not have one.  Where do you think it should be, if
> > Ruby should have a standard documentation directory.  And how far
> > should it cover?  Libraries?  Applications?
> 
> first of all, this idea is fantastic.  however, i think it would be made
> better if a standard doccumentation format was also agreed upon.

Given that the Ruby source contains all of its docs in RD format, and
that you can generate html, man or rdoc pages (I think) from rd docs,
why should we settle on html?

Now, if someone wants to include a massive rdoc index for all the
builtin stuff, that's fine with me.  In any case, let's just settle on
the directory first.  And yes, I already voted on the RCR. :)

Regards,

Dan