Someone has suggested that but I haven't looked at it.  I haven't
gotten far with the whole ruby_parser port (it's in place but didn't
take long to write), so switching to something would be fine.  I'll
look into that tonight then, since I didn't know 1.9 had it built in.

I spoke to Eric via mailing list who said he wanted to use ruby_parser
for a new RDoc, but ripper seems like a more logical choice to me.

--Jeremy

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Dave Thomas <dave / pragprog.com> wrote:
>
>  On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Jeremy McAnally wrote:
>
> > As an aside, I'm working on re-implementing RDoc using ruby_parser.
> > It's in very bad shape right now (transitioning from using RDoc's
> > CodeObjects stuff to ruby_parser), but you can monitor my work at
> > http://github.com/jeremymcanally/docr .
> >
>
>  Could ripper be used for this? Given that 1.9 has it built in, it would
> reduce dependencies (on of the goals of RDoc was to have zero external
> dependencies, and that still seems like a good idea).
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > The basic plan is to get the parser/normalization stuff in place and
> > tested this week.  Then I'll try to put a really lightweight bin
> > script/library in front of it next week.  Most of the same code should
> > work in that part with minor modification.  Sometime in there I'll be
> > extracting the markup stuff from RDoc into its own gem/library so it's
> > more separated from the mainline DocR stuff.  I believe I along with
> > others have plans to hack in some additions to the markup to give it
> > some more powerful structures.
> >
> > Hopefully when this is in decent shape, it will be a well-tested,
> > nicely implemented Ruby documentation tool.
> >
>
>  Are you talking to Eric, who's currently working on RDoc for 1.9?
>
>
>  Dave
>
>



-- 
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com

Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (http://manning.com/mcanally/)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)

Or, my blogs:
http://mrneighborly.com
http://rubyinpractice.com