Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:01554] Re: rdtool documentation for library modules"
    on 00/02/23, Dave Thomas <Dave / thomases.com> writes:
>The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
>that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.
>
>Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok / yb3.so-net.ne.jp> writes:
>
>> Sorry I don't know about NetNews well, so I post this to this ruby-talk
>> instead of comp.lang.misc.
>
>And I appreciate it ;-)

thanks.

>> I'll show you what RD has changed last month.
>> 
>>   * MethodList, new RDElement which is special type of DescList for Method
>>     of Ruby(and other languages).
>
>This all looks great.
>
>You say that TempFile is obsolete. Is that just the method list, or
>are the headings themselves wrong?

Just because not using MethodList. AFAIK, content of tempfile.rd is
correct. (but, I think, my poor English should be corrected.;-p)

>> >The reason I ask is that right now I'm documenting the library modules
>> >for the book. If people want, I could transfer this same documentation
>> >to the actual library source files in rd format, killing two birds
>> >with one stone. If that sounds like a good idea, I just need to know
>> >what format to use.
>> 
>> If you try to use RD for it, we will understand what isn't enough for RD.
>> I'll welcome it very much. :-)
>
>Well, we're typesetting the book using LaTeX, and we have a large
>number of special macros (that do things such as insert live output
>from Ruby code fragments into the text), so we won't be able to write
>the book itself using rdtool. However, I was thinking that as I have
>already got the documentation written, a Ruby script to convert it
>from LaTeX ino rdtool shouldn't be too difficult. Then I can insert
>the result into each library file.
>
>Does this sound like a useful thing to do?

Yes, I see.
Providing both book documents and on-line documents might be good
idea, I think. I like old book style document, but I also want 
on-line documents to refer it while I am writing a program! :-)

---
Tosh
Toshiro Kuwabara