On 25 June 2010 07:03, R.. Kumar <sentinel1879 / gmail.com> wrote:

> A year or so back I adopted Yard, i liked the ability to define params
> and return values etc (coming from a java background, it looked good).
>
> Today, i see some really great output in docs using Hanna -- although
> I've yet to find a document specifying a template. I assume therefore
> that it uses the good old rdoc format, nothing new added ? Am i right ?
>

That's correct.


>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Is there an emerging standard? What is the most popular of these?
> What output are other rubyists finding most helpful.
>

I guess that's quite a personal choice really. YARD is being adopted in a
*lot* of libraries now though.


>
> 2. Does Hanna require any special tags or formatting. If so, can someone
> give a link.
>

No extra tags or specific formatting because it is still just an RDoc
template. The homepage on GitHub should be a pretty good reference though;
http://wiki.github.com/mislav/hanna/

I use hanna for all my documentation, the only downside is being limited to
RDoc 2.3.0


>
> 3. Any advantages or comparison between hanna and Yard.
>

Unless you're comparing cosmetics then it's more a comparison of RDoc and
YARD. I'm still not even sure which I personally prefer. The only reason I
use Hanna for RDoc is because I really really dislike Darkfish


>
> 4. will hanna be able to work on Yard documentation, or would i have to
> change the tags ?
>

YARD processes RDoc so it'll work fine, but of course making the most of
YARD requires you to adopt it's syntax, and there should be no reason why
you wouldn't.

Lee