Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > Ruby's RDocs

Reply
Thread Tools

Ruby's RDocs

 
 
Intransition
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
Thanks to Josh Cheek I finally went and started the documentation
project I've been planning to do since '09.

http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/

The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them
together some way. But I think it's a good start.

I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the
standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as
purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving
them as time permits.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chuck Remes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Intransition wrote:

> Thanks to Josh Cheek I finally went and started the documentation
> project I've been planning to do since '09.
>
> http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/
>
> The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them
> together some way. But I think it's a good start.
>
> I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the
> standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as
> purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving
> them as time permits.


Do you intend to push these changes upstream so that they eventually show up on ruby-doc.org?

cr


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Intransition
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010


On Jun 27, 9:36=A0am, Chuck Remes <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Intransition wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Josh Cheek I finally went and started the documentation
> > project I've been planning to do since '09.

>
> > =A0http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/

>
> > The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them
> > together some way. But I think it's a good start.

>
> > I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the
> > standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as
> > purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving
> > them as time permits.

>
> Do you intend to push these changes upstream so that they eventually show=

up on ruby-doc.org?

I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in
small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of
my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who
doesn't want better documentation? And if they aren't, well then, what
would be the point?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Benoit Daloze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
On 27 June 2010 17:19, Intransition <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in
> small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of
> my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who
> doesn't want better documentation? And if they aren't, well then, what
> would be the point?
>


This is certainly a very good idea.
It would clearly be handy on ruby-doc.org

 
Reply With Quote
 
Josh Cheek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Intransition <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 27, 9:36 am, Chuck Remes <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Intransition wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to Josh Cheek I finally went and started the documentation
> > > project I've been planning to do since '09.

> >
> > > http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/

> >
> > > The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them
> > > together some way. But I think it's a good start.

> >
> > > I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the
> > > standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as
> > > purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving
> > > them as time permits.

> >
> > Do you intend to push these changes upstream so that they eventually show

> up on ruby-doc.org?
>
> I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in
> small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of
> my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who
> doesn't want better documentation? And if they aren't, well then, what
> would be the point?
>
>

I think you have a good chance, it seems stdlib docs are already on the
radar http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html

There are lots of useful hidden libs in there. I just recently discovered
Pathname, for example, and wondered how I had never seen it before.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any rdocs available online ? Nit Khair Ruby 1 12-08-2008 05:58 AM
Nitro + Og 0.27.0 Client code, WebFile, Elements improved, New examples RDocs George Moschovitis Ruby 5 01-19-2006 04:12 AM
How to view the rdocs for gems? Lloyd Zusman Ruby 3 09-07-2005 03:31 PM
ruby / rails newbie - Finding documentation in RDocs steveH Ruby 3 09-05-2005 06:40 PM
building rdocs for Rake Joel VanderWerf Ruby 10 03-08-2005 02:26 PM



Advertisments