ES wrote:
> I am thinking of starting something up to entirely
> replace (not fix) RDoc, so I need some input.

Any replacement for Rdoc will need to accept the same input Rdoc 
currently accepts, and produce output that's significantly better. 
Otherwise, it won't be worth the pain of migration. It's hard enough to 
get programmers to document code to start with (just look at the 
standard library!), let alone get them to go back and re-document it.

The biggest problem I've found with Rdoc is that there doesn't seem to 
be any easy way to make it generate documentation for methods that are 
created at run time. However, to be honest I'd rather see Rdoc fixed to 
add a directive for that, rather than a whole new system written.


mathew
-- 
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>
          WE HAVE TACOS