From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2003-10-23T14:17:54+09:00 Subject: Re: RDoc and i18n On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:16:10 +0900, Chad Fowler wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Austin Ziegler wrote: > # [edited because there's two different discussions] > # > # On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:12:30 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote: # > We've all > seen the problems that arise now when documentation is # > separate from > code, and the code changes. I'd like to try to avoid # > this. # > # In general, I agree. However, there was a conversation on #ruby-talk # > a few weeks ago (where I started looking at this) that suggested # that > there are cases when the inline documentation is, well, too # much. There > are cases when RDoc makes really good API documentation, # but doesn't > work as well when you're reading the source itself. (The # complaint was > specifically about methods that are really self- # documenting, such as > #<=>.) # > I was part of that conversation. I think I may have even started it if > it's the one I'm thinking of. I think you were. I know that David Black was involved in the conversation, too. > I didn't feel like RDoc itself was in some way in need of a change. I > was critiquing what I think is non-value-adding documentation such as: > > # Remove an element from the list > def remove_from_list(element) > @list.remove(element) > end You're right. If you have the code immediately available, then such documentation *is* NVA. In API documentation, though, I disagree that it's NVA. I find it quite annoying to open an rdoc API and find that half of the methods aren't documented ... until I open the code window and see that it really is a simple method. As I told Dave, though, there's a problem with the fact that multi-lingual documentation is next to impossible if there's any chance of multiple encodings. What I've proposed would solve that -- but it would also allow for the other item. -austin -- austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.10.23 * 00.54.55