Ruby's RDocs

Ruby
1

Thanks to Josh C. 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.

2

On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Intransition wrote:

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

3

On Jun 27, 9:36 am, Chuck R. [email protected] wrote:

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?

4

On 27 June 2010 17:19, Intransition [email protected] 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

5

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Intransition [email protected]
wrote:

The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them
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.