Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 8/27/05, ES <ruby-ml / magical-cat.org> wrote:
> 
>>I am thinking of starting something up to entirely
>>replace (not fix) RDoc, so I need some input.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't want to see RDoc replaced. I *do* want to see it
> fixed. If this means that you create an implementation that replaces
> the current one while keeping the same interface and it's of a
> high-enough quality that Matz accepts it into the core, then more
> power to you. However, if it isn't going to make it into the core,
> then I think that it's a bit of a distraction and you'd be better off
> working with the RDoc maintainers (and possibly seeing about becoming
> one yourself) to fix what's wrong with RDoc.

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I don't buy the "distraction" 
argument.  If RDoc and  "ES-doc" are destined for different paths, so be 
it. I'm happy to have alternatives for extraction useful information 
from source code.  Choice is good.

I've spent enough time trying different approaches to custom parsing the 
ri yml files, with unsatisfactory results, that I heartily encourage 
people to try their hand at rdoc alternatives and offer up what they find.



James

-- 

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