"Ryan Leavengood" <RyanL / mosaicsoftware.com> writes:

> style tags for formatting.  I like Jason's suggestion of using the %
> symbol for the special information tags, but the question remains what
> should be used for formatting.  What is most similar to Ruby in its ease
> of creation and reading?  I think that is the question we need to

I would suggest something like "\section". We could orient to doxygen syntax
(even if we use our own tool) so if doxygen someday gets Ruby support, one
could easy migrate to doxygen (which has nice features like including formulas
(-> LaTeX, rendered images or maybe MATHML for HTML-pages) and the like).

> answer.  Ruby's documentation standard should be up to par with the
> language itself.

But what about multi language projects? For every language a different tool
with different syntax and features and different output styles? Then i prefer
a not so Ruby like documentation syntax if i get one tool for most/all
languages.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.