hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Fri Feb 1 05:23:41 EST 2008
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Mark Hubbart wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2008 2:23 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain at segment7.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 30, 2008, at 13:10 PM, Trans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's not so. The has_rdoc is set to false for a reason.
> > >
> > > Then you're a bad person. Not generating RDoc/ri is hostile to your
> > > users.
> harsh much?
Could have done with an emoticon, but the context implies jocular.
> Reasons you might not want to generate RDoc for a particular gem:
> - Your interface is already documented. Say you write a lib that
> speeds up the use of Ruby's built-in complex class. If there's nothing
> but a speed improvement, why re-document the methods?
why not use :nodoc: ?
> - There is no interface to document. Perhaps your library does magic
> stuff in the background (say, logging performance stats), needing no
> method calls whatsoever.
> - Your entire interface is dynamic, and has no set method calls. Maybe
> you prefer to explain it on a website.
Not sure how to apply :nodoc: in these cases.
> > > Plus one might not have a rubyforge project.
> The "real" project could be on sourceforge.org, or code.google.com.
Maybe there needs to a directive to say whwere the project is?
More information about the Rubygems-developers