Ryan Davis wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 13:50 , davetron5000 wrote:
> 
>> I realize specifying the types of things is not the Ruby way[...]
> 
> No, it really isn't. I think it is fair to say that rdoc won't being  
> going that direction (via the maintainers at least).

It's a pity if duck-typing has become such rigid dogma.

Applied to RDoc, it ignores the fact that many useful libraries are 
extensions where class-based typing is unavoidable, because their Ruby 
objects are proxies for strongly typed pointers in another language (eg 
C++, Java). For these, class-type info is an important part of the 
method documentation.

I was pleased to learn about YARDoc, having made do with a mess of 
hand-rolled Textile to overcome just this deficiency in RDoc.

a