[#2367] Standard libraries — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

From ruby-dev summary:

60 messages 2004/02/11

[#2397] PATCH: deprecate cgi-lib, getopts, importenv, parsearg from standard library — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Index: cgi-lib.rb

15 messages 2004/02/12

[#2465] PATCH: OpenStruct#initialize to yield self — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

This is a common approach I use to object initialization; I don't know

24 messages 2004/02/19

Re: Standard libraries

From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Date: 2004-02-12 04:01:01 UTC
List: ruby-core #2379
Hi,

> From: "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:41 PM

> > RDoc style is a must?  I don't like documentation buried within
> > a source code (code duplication for me).
> 
> RDoc is the standard way to document standard library files.  It's only
> code duplication if you put code in the comments :)

Anyway, duplication of something I don't like to see/maintain.

> Still with 'soap', the SOAP module should have enough documentation to
> show the user how to use it.  And they should get an idea of which classes
> are important to them, and which ones are not.

I added many samples to show "how to use it" but it could not be
enough.  I thought I was going to write some simple document and
import libs to ruby's CVS.  But I have no plan to write it inline
to avoid the duplication.

I think we should remove soap, wsdl and xsd modules if "complete"
documentation is required.

Regards,
// NaHi

In This Thread