From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2004-04-26T10:54:06+09:00
Subject: Re: rdoc - can I choose which methods are "attributes"?

Quoteing vjoel@PATH.Berkeley.EDU, on Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:19:37AM +0900:
> Sam Roberts wrote:
> >I thought I saw discussion about this once, but I don't see anything in
> >the current rdoc docs (http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/).
> >
> >Treating methods as attrs if they were defined with attr, attr_reader,
> >etc. seems to break the whole point of uniform access, its just
> >an implmentation technique.
> >
> >The defaults are often great, but is there any way, say a "#
> >:attr(r,w):" comment, that I can use to get some of my methods to show
> >up in the "Attributes" section of the docs?
> 
> This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but maybe it helps.
> 
> The rdoc help says:
> 
>       --accessor, -A accessorname[,..]
>                  comma separated list of additional class methods
>                  that should be treated like 'attr_reader' and
>                  friends. Option may be repeated. Each accessorname
>                  may have '=text' appended, in which case that text
>                  appears where the r/w/rw appears for normal accessor
> 
> So for example if you have
> 
>   class Person
>     string_attribute :name
>   end

I guess I could abuse this mechanism to do something like:

 ri  --accessor an_attr_r=r


  class Class
    def an_attr_r(*args)
    end
  end


  class Foo
    def group
      @foo * 1
    end

    an_attr_r :group
  end



I don't know if this would work, exactly, maybe this is the wrong way to
define an_attr_r, but even if it did work, its a pretty strikingly
cumbersome way to say that Foo#group should show up in the Attribute
section as "group [r]"!

Sam