«

Hi all!

I have a pretty large extension I want to document with RDoc.

The problem is, I have several files:

htmr_main.cpp:
...
rb_mHtmr = rb_define_module("Htmr");
...

htmr_constants.cpp:
==================
...
rb_mHtmrConstants = rb_define_module_under(rb_mHtmr, "Constants");
...

The problem with such organization: RDoc says "Enclosing class/module
'rb_mHtmr' for module Constants not known".

I can:
1. move the line "rb_mHtmr = ..." to htmr_constants.cpp, but rb_mHtmr is
used not only from this file.
2. move the line "rb_mHtmrConstants = ..." to htmr_main.cpp, but in this
case all othre contents of htmr_constants.cpp is ignored by Rdoc.
3. join all files of the extension into one huge file, but it will be ugly


Was I miss something?

Thanks.

V.

> The problem with such organization: RDoc says "Enclosing class/module
> 'rb_mHtmr' for module Constants not known".

I've done the following with my extensions:
while creating documentation, I've concatenated all data in one file and
rdoc is parsing one file.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

> as in my sources there are many other problems for RDoc, like shortcut
> macro

These shortcuts seems to be one of the greatest problem. The only way to
bypass them is to use some sort of C->xml compilers in RDoc (to make it
very complicated), or to create some sort of explicit binding C
functions to ruby methods

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

> BTW, I've found even \t (Tab) symbol in sources confuses RDoc
>

Yes, RDoc seems to be a rather confusable thing =)
I think, that there is no use in trying to make a perfect RDoc for C
extensions, so You hack is OK. You can also make the following:
preprecess sources before RDoc-ing them. Thus, all You macroses will be
expanded to rb_define_method

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.