# RDoc - hidden documentation

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [January 6, 2008, 11:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155 "2008-01-06T11:36:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/FrSSSSdSSSSric_Masc)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 11:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155/1 "2008-01-06T11:36:46Z")

</div>

Hi,

I generated the RDoc documentation for Rails 2.0.2 via rake, but many  
classes are not present in the documentation. For example the class  
“CGI::Session::CookieStore” is hidden even if its file is visible in  
the files list (vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action\_controller/session/  
cookie\_store.rb).

Why and how to generate the documentation for those classes?

I also update the “documentation.rake” to show all methods (option “–  
all”), but it doesn’t work.

Have you a solution?

Thanks.

Frédéric Mascaro

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/FrSSSSdSSSSric_Masc)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155/2 "2008-01-06T16:12:32Z")

</div>

They are likely marked “:nodoc:” in the source, which means RDoc is  
supposed to skip them. To get around that you need to hack RDoc, but  
you can view documentation generated by skipping those nodoc commands  
at [http://caboo.se/doc.html](http://caboo.se/doc.html).

–Jeremy

On Jan 6, 2008 5:36 AM, Frédéric Mascaro [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> 

–  
[http://www.jeremymcanally.com/](http://www.jeremymcanally.com/)

My books:  
Ruby in Practice

> **[Ruby in Practice](https://www.manning.com/books/ruby-in-practice)**
>
> Like Ruby itself, Ruby in Practice will make you more productive. The book shows you practical techniques and strategies for small projects and large-scale environments. A cookbook-style reference, it gives you concrete examples of systems...

My free Ruby e-book

> **[Site not found · DreamHost](http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/)**
>
> The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website.

My blogs:

> **[Site not found · DreamHost](http://www.mrneighborly.com/)**
>
> The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website.

[http://www.rubyinpractice.com/](http://www.rubyinpractice.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/FrSSSSdSSSSric_Masc)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:38am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155/3 "2009-03-24T10:38:00Z")

</div>

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

> They are likely marked “:nodoc:” in the source, which means RDoc is  
> supposed to skip them.  
> Why is the documentation for these methods hidden from the public? The  
> method is still invokable. If really they wanted people to not know  
> about such methods and to prevent them from using them, why not make  
> these methods as protected/private or change how the encapsulation is  
> done?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@FrSSSSdSSSSric\_Masc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/FrSSSSdSSSSric_Masc)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-hidden-documentation/125155/4 "2009-03-24T17:26:40Z")

</div>

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Fernando P.  
[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Jeremy McAnally wrote:
> 
> > They are likely marked “:nodoc:” in the source, which means RDoc is  
> > supposed to skip them.  
> > Why is the documentation for these methods hidden from the public? The  
> > method is still invokable. If really they wanted people to not know  
> > about such methods and to prevent them from using them, why not make  
> > these methods as protected/private or change how the encapsulation is  
> > done?

Making them private doesn’t make them inaccessible. In Ruby nothing  
is really private like one might expect from experience with Java or  
C++.

> irb
> 
> > s = ’ foo ’  
> > =\> " foo "  
> > s.private\_methods.include? ‘pp’  
> > =\> true  
> > s.pp  
> > NoMethodError: private method `pp’ called for " foo ":String  
> > from (irb):3  
> > from :0  
> > s.send( :pp, ’ foo ’ )  
> > " foo "  
> > =\> nil

–  
Greg D.  
[http://destiney.com/](http://destiney.com/)