[Rubygems-developers] Gemtacular Now Links to RDocs
hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Thu Jan 18 14:33:39 EST 2007
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Chad Fowler wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Or the rdoc options could he kept for if/when rdoc is used, and
> > since this is YAML one could have an array of alternative doc systems
> > and a corresponding array of of options. Or maybe a hash.
> > I'm not sure that one can assert YAGNI in this case: we live in a
> > world with LaTeX, Lout and DocBook.
> I guess I disagree. We can assert YAGNI for RubyGems doc generation.
> If someone wants to do LaTex, that's fine. They can create another
> mechanism with which to do it. I don't think we have to extend
> RubyGems to allow for (or even encourage) divergent documentation
> systems. We certainly don't prevent them.
But leaving the facility out means that there's presently no way to
leave options for how other docs should appear, in the gemspec; or
is there? I'm all for standardising on RDoc, but I think things
should be kept open, extensible. Someone may produce a better Rdoc.
And someone may have good reasons for departing from Rdoc -- heavily
mathematical applications may need Mathml support or LaTeX or...
One thing I've felt about Ruby itself is that it embodies such
flexibility with the way you can add blocks in all sorts of places,
and this gives great power...
> > On the gems homepage should there not be a link to Gemtacular, now
> > that it has been blessed (erm, not in the Perl sense...)?
> Yea. It will become the RubyGems.org home page soon.
OK, I'd just lost it, and thought a link would be good for now.
More information about the Rubygems-developers