Andrew Thompson wrote:
>  ...
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I've been toying with ruby for the last month or so and I've become a 
> big fan of the language. My only gripe is the documentation is, at best, 
> patchy and obtuse.
> 
> I don't intend to flame, or disparage the work done on the documentation 
> so far, but its not really up to scratch when you look at Python's 
> manual or, my personal favorite, the PHP manual.
> 
> I'm thinking of a system that will allow people to edit/add 
> documentation from the web based on the existing rdoc and source code 
> comments, and then generate CVS patches based on those changes which we 
> can then send for inclusion into mainline.

<snip/>

I'm working on this right now.

> 
> I've been looking at the rdoc comments in the standard library, and it 
> seems fairly standard, the method used to document the core .c files 
> seems a bit less clear, but I think its still usable.
> 
> My basic plan is to have a php style manual 
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/ generated from the rdoc comments, with the 
> ability to have the documentation maintained in a wiki based fashion, 
> and have user comments along the lines of the PHP manual. This way we 
> lower the barrier to writing documentation, allow users to comment with 
> code samples or additional info, and hopefully increase and improve the 
> amount of documentation ruby has.

Yes, this is quite good, and a some of what I'm after.

 > ...
> 
> I haven't planned out the technicalities of it yet, but I'm thinking 
> Ruby on Rails (Everyone seems to be talking about it, but its ruby, so 
> how bad could it be?) and MySQL or PostgreSQL (whatever's handy). The 
> apache mod_rewrite might be handy too, but not essential.


I'm using Nitro.


James Britt
-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys