From: Jean-Hugues ROBERT <jean_hugues_robert@...>
Date: 2004-05-01T01:12:05+09:00
Subject: Re: coerce(), what protocol to implement it

At 14:14 30/04/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>>Is there something like
>>   Class.implementers( meth)
>>that would return a list of all known classes that implement
>>some method ? It could not returned the classes that where
>>never required but it may help understand the protocols for
>>common methods that where designed to be redefined
>
>If you have ri installed (and if you don't, I'd definitely recommend doing 
>so), try something like
>
>  ri <method>
>
>For example, "ri open" gives me
>
>  The method named `open' is not unique among Ruby's classes and modules:
>       Dir::open, File::open, Kernel::open
>
>Cheers,
>
>Harry O.

I tried.
Apparently something is broken.
It just complains about a bad path.

I had a look at ri.bat and apparently it references some weird
E:\Dev\RubyDev\rubyinstaller\....
I tried to fix the offending line. But then I get a msg
about missing ri documentation and some rdoc run to create
documentation.

I ran "rdoc" but it parsed only the files from the directory where
I invoked it (c:\ruby\bin in that case). So I ran it again, but
from c:\ruby this time. That took a while...

Then rdoc what about generate HTML but
"Directory doc already exists, but it looks like it isnt'..."
and rdoc asked me to re-run using some --op option.

I suppose this is when I gave up. What should have I done ?

This might be the Windows packaging issue mentioned in some msg
threads a while ago, I haven't read the msgs carefully.

Thanks for the suggestion anyways. Investigating "ri" is on my
"to do" list now.

Yours,

Jean-Hugues



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web:  http://hdl.handle.net/1030.37/1.1
Phone: +33 (0) 4 92 27 74 17