[Rubyinstaller-devel] ri documentation included in final installer?
luislavena at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 15:07:45 EDT 2009
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Roger Pack<rogerdpack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does Ri inject properly at runtime the documentation? I mean it alters
>> the definition based on "required" files. I believe it not, so CHM is
>> going to be the same, you search for it and read the docs.
> I'm not sure if I understand what inject means. It is also true that
> 95% of end users won't use RI [they'll just use
For example, if I call ri Object would read the documentation for it,
but wouldn't that change if I loaded before (using require) something
that contained it's own documentation for the same element?
Perhaps intellisense is not something that RI has been built for ;-)
...hmm...I'm still in thinking that we could perhaps
> release two versions of each--one that is *large, fat, slow* and one
> that is lean and mean.
Please take a look to this:
You have the installers for 1.8.6 (and upcoming 1.9.1) and a separate
installer with full RI and RDocs.
I agree that I would love to split them, but going back to the original message:
ri Something come back empty.
I wonder how many people actually use ri.
Current One-Click ships with FXIRB, an interactive console which at
the same time offer access to the documentation.
I must say never used it, and considered too much (ok, I'm a man of a
simple notepad and the command prompt, so...)
Forgetting for one second that generating RDoc for Ruby-core eats the
processor and RAM, the additional installers should contain RI and
RDoc, while the CHM should be bundled with the standard installer.
People will still have access to documentation with the package, and
those wanting to have ri and rdoc for stdlib and core, they can
download the additional package.
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
More information about the Rubyinstaller-devel