On Mar 26, 2004, at 11:04, Michael Davis wrote: > What you do think about changing the relationship between RDoc and the > template? I seems like having the template be a module that RDoc > mixes in may provide simpler templates and offer the template more > flexibility in generating output. This could involve having RDoc > build containers (possibly arrays) for each of the sections and then > passing each container to a method in the template that returns a > string containing the formatted HTML for that section. That's actually how it works now: the HTML generator builds a container (actually a hash) and then invokes the templating engine, passing in the values in the hash and the name of the actual template. > It would nice to be able to view and alter the container before it is > processed, this could be accomplished by calling a method and passing > in the container just after the container is built. I would actually > prefer two methods for each section, one method that iterates over the > content of the container and a second method that processes each > element in the container. > That would be possible: could you give an example of what you'd do with this? > This could also pave the way for easily creating different kinds of > outputers. If the template contained all of the output methods, a > different outputer could be created just by creating a new template. That's pretty much achievable right now: you just add a new generator to the generator/ directory. You then invoke it from the command line using the --fmt xxx directive. Cheers Dave