Re: Uniform RDoc markup

Of course.  I just tossed that out there because it makes sense to me,
not that it's the ultimate template.  I based it off of the C#
documentation, since I find it the easiest to navigate.  I know
exactly what I'm looking for will be, which, I think, is a benefit of
it being so structured.

I'm definitely open to an alternate approach.

--Jeremy

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby <at> zenspider.com> wrote:
>
>  On May 4, 2008, at 13:37 , Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>
>
> > "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > > Would there be any resistance to making the markup of the RDoc
> > > throughout the core code more consistent?
> > >
> >
> > I would be very much in favour of seeing stronger conventions applied
> > throughout the Ruby community in the standard library, in gems, and
> > elsewhere. That's one of the things I miss from writing Emacs Lisp; it
> > has very specific guidelines[1]
> >
>
>  I guess Phil brings up a good point... emacs lisp doco is a breeze to read.
>
>  I don't mind any work making rdoc more consistent, but I'll resist any
> efforts to make it so damn structured. Do we really need to have an h4 tag
> for the parameters, options, returns, examples sections??? Let's leave
> javadoc to the java ppl and do something cleaner and clearer.
>
>
>

--

-- 
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com

Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (http://manning.com/mcanally/)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)

Or, my blogs:
http://mrneighborly.com
http://rubyinpractice.com