Forum: Ruby RDoc (Darkfish) not ordering method by name

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Iñaki Baz Castillo (Guest)
on 2009-03-10 00:29
(Received via mailing list)
Hi, when I run "rdoc" Darkfish creates an HTML in which my class methods
appear in alphabetic order.
Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name? I would really
prefer it
to respect the order in which they are written into the class.

Thanks.
Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-03-10 01:59
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> Hi, when I run "rdoc" Darkfish creates an HTML in which my class
> methods
> appear in alphabetic order.
> Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?

It isn't possible

> I would really prefer it  to respect the order in which they are
> written into the class.


You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores
sections.  A future release will correct this.
Iñaki Baz Castillo (Guest)
on 2009-03-12 22:06
(Received via mailing list)
El Martes, 10 de Marzo de 2009, Eric Hodel
escribió:>
> You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores
> sections.  A future release will correct this.

Thanks for clarify it.
Clifford Heath (Guest)
on 2009-03-13 00:15
(Received via mailing list)
Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 16:26, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Is it possible RDoc not to order the methods by name?
> It isn't possible
> You can group methods by section, but currently Darkfish ignores
> sections.  A future release will correct this.

As a kinda- feature request, I re-open the same class in
various different subsystems, where the subsystems provide
aspects of the system that can be either required or omitted.
Perhaps a better solution would be to do that with an include,
but anyhow... I'd like to be able to separate the features of
class X that belong to each aspect... is that what sections
are for? If not, I think it'd be nice if that was somehow
possible.

With this, I'd like to see the classname and description,
then a set of aspect/section names, each with a summary
listing of the method names - each method name to jump into
a (possibly global-sorted?) list of method descriptions.

Thoughts? Would anyone else use a feature like this?

A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
can do.

Clifford Heath.
Iñaki Baz Castillo (Guest)
on 2009-03-13 00:39
(Received via mailing list)
El Viernes, 13 de Marzo de 2009, Clifford Heath
escribió:> A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
> documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
> includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
> can do.

Yes, very useful. For example I'm building a SipUri class which is child
of
GenericUri. Lots of methods are just defined for GenericUri and not
overriden
in SipUri.
Unfortunatelly RDoc (Darkfish) doesn't show non-overriden GenericUri
methods
in SipUri documentation. It would be really useful.
Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-03-16 19:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 12, 2009, at 16:12, Clifford Heath wrote:
> Perhaps a better solution would be to do that with an include,
> but anyhow... I'd like to be able to separate the features of
> class X that belong to each aspect... is that what sections
> are for? If not, I think it'd be nice if that was somehow
> possible.

You could use sections for this, yes

> A similar feature would allow, for example, to have Array
> documentation include links to the Enumerable methods it
> includes. Helpful for someone wanting to learn what an Array
> can do.

Darkfish has links to included modules via the sidebar.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.