Cameron McBride wrote:

> 
>>The available documentation either is is not acceptable; different people 
>>have different needs and criteria, 
> 
> 
> Right, and the message I was trying to convey is that 'I find it
> acceptable and it's getting better'
> 
> 
>>but no one is served by making excuses.
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to be, nor would I dare.  ruby rocks.  It needs none. 
> Again, sorry for the confusion.


And I'm sorry if I came off as harsh or dismissive.   I think I was 
having flashbacks to similar discussions some years ago, when someone 
posted a serious criticism of the state of ruby documentation, and there 
was a steady stream of, "Yes, but ..." answers, each trying to 
rationalize or explain away the issue.

The situation has improved immensely, and though there is still much 
more to be done, all involved should be quite proud of their work.


James