# RDoc Improvement Request

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [January 19, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560 "2007-01-19T16:31:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/1 "2007-01-19T16:31:18Z")

</div>

In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not  
listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is  
nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in  
the list.

I’m not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don’t know exactly how the online  
docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc’s  
implementation. If I’m wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to  
address this.

Thanks  
Matt

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 10:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/2 "2007-09-25T22:30:43Z")

</div>

matt wrote:

> In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not  
> listed in the Methods section to browse for them. Since an attribute is  
> nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in  
> the list.
> 
> I’m not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don’t know exactly how the online  
> docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc’s  
> implementation. If I’m wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to  
> address this.

If methods are defined using attr\_\* then rdoc does not list them as  
methods.

I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I’ve had  
this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the  
minority.

–  
James B.

“If you don’t write it down, it never happened.”

- (Unknown)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/3 "2007-09-25T22:33:13Z")

</div>

On 1/13/07, Felipe N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > > address this.  
> > > –  
> > > (.) CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII ( [http://arc.pasp.de/](http://arc.pasp.de/))  
> > > / \ Contra formatos proprietarios

It is because RDoc parses the actual method definition. Attr\_\* does  
not have the string “\n def \* …” or the like in it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 10:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/4 "2007-09-25T22:43:39Z")

</div>

On Jan 13, 2007, at 08:37, matt wrote:

> docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc’s  
> implementation. If I’m wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to  
> address this.

[http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group\_id=627](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=627)

–  
Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net)

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 10:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/5 "2007-09-25T22:50:58Z")

</div>

On 1/13/07, James B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> If methods are defined using attr\_\* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
> 
> I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I’ve had  
> this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.

I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to  
ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc. This is  
very confusing !

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-improvement-request/82560/6 "2007-09-25T22:39:15Z")

</div>

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 03:33 +0900, Felipe N. wrote:

> > > address this.
> > 
> > If methods are defined using attr\_\* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
> > 
> > I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I’ve had  
> > this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.
> 
> I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to  
> ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc. This is  
> very confusing !

My take was based on the documentation of a method as follows from  
Module.attr:

module Mod  
attr :size, true  
end

is equivalent to:

module Mod  
def size  
@size  
end  
def size=(val)  
@size = val  
end  
end

So this implies that the attr\* are in fact methods…  
but it sounds like this dead horse has been beaten in the past.

Who knows, maybe it’ll finally get to me and I’ll write my own document  
parser…

Matt