On 23 Aug 2005, at 17:56, James Britt wrote:

> Eric Hodel wrote:
>
>> Which is exactly as it should be, WEBrick is not mentioned in   
>> lib/.document:
>> $ grep -i webrick lib/.document
>> $
>> Somebody needs to make sure that they're OK to be RDoc'd and get  
>> them  added to lib/.document.
>
> What's the criteria?  I can think of two things offhand:
>
> * The code does not redefine any other classes (as this tends to boink
> the original ri files.)  E.g., it is not adding or altering methods  
> in,
> say, Array or String.  (Or, if it does redefine stuff, that part  
> does not get ri'ed.  I think nodoc can handle that.)

I think if the documentation mentions where non-core methods come  
from that'd be enough.  There are a few non-core methods listed in ri  
(Time#iso8601 comes from time.rb).  Maybe just adding "require 'foo'"  
to the synopsis.

Personally, I'd rather see some documentation that confuses origin  
over no docs.

> * The code has some useful docs.
>
> Certainly it would be nice to get those doc'ed libs from the stdlib  
> into
> ri by default.

Most importantly, post patches to ruby-core.  I RDoc'd resolv.rb a  
few months back.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain / segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E  7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04