On Dec 17, 2003, at 18:45, James Brtt wrote:
> 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'?
>
Yes - they're simply for rdoc output (given that that's the tool I'm 
writing). I certainly don't want to be telling other people where to 
put stuff: I just needed to make sure that I put the things I need in 
the correct place.

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

Yes: the intermediate form that RDoc generates for ri is not for human 
consumption. That's what's going in to these directories. When RDoc 
generates HTML (or anything else, really) it will do it the same as 
now, defaulting to a doc subdirectory with --op used to override that.

Cheers

Dave