preliminary rubycomplete documentation for review

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at
Thu Apr 20 18:35:34 EDT 2006

On 4/21/06, Doug Kearns <dougkearns at> wrote:
> > >
> > > So this is user documentation, not to be inserted into insert.txt like
> > > Mark distributed to us?  It's the user's responsibility to generate it
> > > after installation?
> >
> > Well it's possibly both now. I used to have the syntax documentation in
> > syntax/doc/ruby.txt but since we're also adding some for omni completion
> > I thought it might be a good idea to make them more obviously accessible
> > to the user. I've sent the contents of ft-ruby-omni.txt to Bram and he's
> > already added it to insert.txt.
> If it was distributed I hadn't actually considered _installing_ it
> locally. I doubt it'd change enough to make that worthwhile although
> Mark seems to have some plans for the omni completion so maybe it would
> be?

'Fraid I don't have a quick or a good answer to that one.  There are
obvious advantages in having the docs embedded in Vim's docs.

Perhaps if the ft-ruby-omni docs included a link to the website people
would know where to look for updates and updated information.

Also, if it's embedded, people should know that compiling with +ruby
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for omni completion: it
must be enabled in the .vimrc or (better) an ftplugin file.  Another
reason to link to

I must confess I hadn't realised that the Ruby *syntax* docs were
embedded.  Since they are, let's ensure the omni ones are too.

And what about a website link in the syntax docs, Doug?


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list