On 1/13/07, Felipe Navas <felipenavas / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/13/07, James Britt <james.britt / gmail.com> wrote:
> > matt wrote:
> > > In searching through the online docs, I noticed that attributes are not
> > > listed in the Methods section to browse for them.  Since an attribute is
> > > nothing more than setter/getter methods, I was expecting to find them in
> > > the list.
> > >
> > > I'm not 100% that this is RDoc,since I don't know exactly how the online
> > > docs are created, but I am under the impression that they use RDoc's
> > > implementation.  If I'm wrong, redirect my compass to where I need to
> > > address this.
> >
> > If methods are defined using attr_* then rdoc does not list them as methods.
> >
> > I agree that this is confusing (if not flat out wrong), but I've had
> > this discussion with various people and this view seems to be the minority.
>
> I agree too! Yesterday i send an RDoc to my team partner (very new to
> ruby) and she notice this when comparing the UML with Rdoc.  This is
> very confusing !
>
> --
> (.)   CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII ( http://arc.pasp.de/)
> / \    Contra formatos proprietarios
>
>

It is because RDoc parses the actual method definition.  Attr_* does
not have the string "\n def * ..." or the like in it.

-- 
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com