hipster wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001  08:00:51 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> --8<--
> > But turn it around. For the cookbook site, as opposed to Gulp, it's
> > perfectly acceptable to have many version of things, partial snippets,
> > and the like. In fact, think how valuable it would be to have all this
> > discussion about Hash defaults archived, along with all the code
> > snippets. People could search for 'hash default' and get not just
> > working code, but an insight into the process that lead to it.
> 
> I would be nice to introduce keywords to go along with each snippet in
> the cookbook, e.g., 'Hash', 'default value', and 'initializer'. It
> separates what from how. A search engine could then return matches for
> both the actual content of the snippets (for keyword matches etc) and
> the keywords associated with them. Other methods for indexing
> unstructured data could be used, of course.

This sounds like a good idea.  Something that would help in
constructing a site (as well as being a win in other areas)
would be a Ruby commenting convention for support of automated
documentation.  I'm thinking of Java's "Javadoc" feature, or
general-purpose programs such as Doc++, doxygen, and Robodoc.

I'm new to Ruby, and just starting the Pickaxe book [after which
I hope to seriously tackle the utility I mentioned in my thread a
few months back on reading large binary files into arrays]. So, 
there might be an automated documentation feature that I just 
haven't heard of yet.

If there is, can someone point me to it?  If not, is there a
chance it could be part of the wishlist for v 1.7?

  --Dwight Tuinstra
    tuinstra / clarkson.edu