On Feb 25, 2009, at 09:32, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> Eric Hodel wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 00:04, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
>>> Can the :method: directive emulate attr_reader, and really make  
>>> the output doc look the same as if attr_reader had been used  
>>> instead of some other class method? Is there a way to display  
>>> "[R]", and group it with other attrs?
>> No.
>> I'm very strongly considering merging the attr-defined methods with  
>> regular methods.  Present your counter-argument here.
>
> Treating attrs the same as other methods does make sense in light of  
> the uniform access principle, but practically speaking it seems a  
> bit severe.

Yes, I was worried it would be too severe.  In terms of an API for  
documentation generation it's easy to work provide uniform access.

> Libraries like fxruby use the attribute section extensively, and it  
> is useful because the methods that appear there not only have more  
> of the attr-nature, but also are based on C++ public data members.  
> It's a helpful bridge back to the Fox world. Plus, it gives you a  
> way to scan the rdocs to see (i) what dials and switches can be  
> adjusted on an object ([W] and [RW]), and (ii) what constitutes the  
> visible state of the object ([R] and [RW]).

Would adding a :attr: directive be an acceptable alternative?  This  
would allow the documentation to be rendered as intended without a  
command line flag.