Michael Davis <mdavis / sevainc.com> writes:

>     rdoc.rb file1.rb file2.txt
> 
> where the following is included in file1.rb:
> 
>     # More info at file2.txt
> 
> I would like file2.txt to be a link that actually opens file2.txt.  If
> I use file2.rb as the filename rather than file2.txt, then it works as
> expected.  The issue for is that file2.rb has only RDoc information
> and no actual ruby code, thus the different extension. Currently, RDoc
> does not convert the reference to file2.txt to a link even though
> file2.txt is one of the files used with RDoc.  Supporting extensions
> other than .rb in this way would have some value for me.

Oh - so you don't just want to link to the file-you actually want to
process it too. I can do that. If I come across I file explicitly
listed on the command line whose extension I don't recognize, I'll
process it as simple markup (without leading '#'s) and incorporate the
results with the regular output. I like that for two reasons: first it
makes READMEs easier to include, and second it gives me a simple way
of handling formatting of standalone simple-markup files.

I'll add this to the list. Once I get some free time it shouldn't take
long.


Cheers


Dave