Ruby's RDocs

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Intransition, Jun 27, 2010.

  1. Intransition

    Intransition Guest

    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.
     
    Intransition, Jun 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Intransition

    Chuck Remes Guest

    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
     
    Chuck Remes, Jun 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Intransition

    Intransition Guest

    On Jun 27, 9:36=A0am, Chuck Remes <> 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?
     
    Intransition, Jun 27, 2010
    #3
  4. On 27 June 2010 17:19, Intransition <> 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
     
    Benoit Daloze, Jun 27, 2010
    #4
  5. Intransition

    Josh Cheek Guest

    [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Intransition <> wrote:

    >
    >
    > On Jun 27, 9:36 am, Chuck Remes <> 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.
     
    Josh Cheek, Jun 27, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joel VanderWerf

    building rdocs for Rake

    Joel VanderWerf, Mar 5, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    211
    Tom Copeland
    Mar 8, 2005
  2. steveH
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    174
    steveH
    Sep 5, 2005
  3. Lloyd Zusman

    How to view the rdocs for gems?

    Lloyd Zusman, Sep 7, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    143
    Lloyd Zusman
    Sep 7, 2005
  4. George Moschovitis
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    181
    guest
    Jan 19, 2006
  5. Nit Khair

    Any rdocs available online ?

    Nit Khair, Dec 8, 2008, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    110
    Pierre Pat
    Dec 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page