Dave Thomas wrote:

> 
> 
> That's compelling: I like the decoupling here: we give the final control 
> to the user. So, how about three standard search paths:
> 
>     $datadir/rdoc/std/...   -- for doc installed as part of core Ruby
>     $datadir/rdoc/site/...  -- for system-wide doc installed by user
>    ~/.rdoc                  -- for personal doc
> 
> Within each of these directories I could then have:
> 
>       ...rdoc/html/...      -- for rdoc generated html
>       ...rdoc/ri/...        -- for rdoc generated RI files
> 
> (Of course, users can always use rdocs --op option to choose their own 
> directories).
> Does this work for folks, or am I getting too complicated?

Are 'rdoc' directories only for the output of running rdoc?  I'm 
guessing not, but if these are directories for documentation in general, 
would it not be better to call them simply 'doc'?

Or is there a reason to distinguish between what comes from RDoc and 
other doc sources?


James