fxruby users - Apr 2007 - FXRuby docs

Lyle,

I''ve noticed a few small problems when the FXRuby docs are built by
ruby
gems, rather than by hand.

One problem is that the "Parent:" field is not correct. For example,
the
parent of FXPopup is listed as Object.

Also, the "In:" field has some extraneous stuff:

   lib/fox16/aliases.rb
   lib/fox16/kwargs.rb
   rdoc-sources/FXPopup.rb

These problems do not happen when I run rdoc in the rdoc-sources dir.

I guess it is because rubygems runs rdoc on all .rb files, so it picks 
up things like aliases.rb, which opens classes but does not declare 
parentage.

Is there any way to tell rubygems to invoke rdoc like this:

   cd rdoc-sources; rdoc

or

  rdoc rdoc-sources

or maybe even

  rdoc --exclude ''lib/fox16/*''

(but I didn''t try the last one) ?

Are there files in lib/fox16 that would need to be included explicitly?

Otherwise, the docs are great. Your work to build up the rdoc-sources 
seems to have paid off. I don''t seem to need to keep the Fox docs open 
in a browser any more. In fact, the RDoc-generated html is easier to 
read and navigate than the Doxygen Fox stuff.

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

On 4/11/07, Joel VanderWerf <vjoel at path.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I''ve noticed a few small problems when the FXRuby docs are built
by ruby
> gems, rather than by hand.
>
> One problem is that the "Parent:" field is not correct. For
example, the
> parent of FXPopup is listed as Object.
>
> Also, the "In:" field has some extraneous stuff:
>
>    lib/fox16/aliases.rb
>    lib/fox16/kwargs.rb
>    rdoc-sources/FXPopup.rb
>
> These problems do not happen when I run rdoc in the rdoc-sources dir.
Huh. I had never noticed this before, but you''re right.
> I guess it is because rubygems runs rdoc on all .rb files, so it picks
> up things like aliases.rb, which opens classes but does not declare
> parentage.
>
> Is there any way to tell rubygems to invoke rdoc like this:
<snip>

Yes, I just need to update the gem specification so that it''s
consistent with the Rakefile''s list of files to include (and exclude).
I''ve filed a bug report on this and it should be fixed the next time.
> Otherwise, the docs are great. Your work to build up the rdoc-sources
> seems to have paid off. I don''t seem to need to keep the Fox docs
open
> in a browser any more. In fact, the RDoc-generated html is easier to
> read and navigate than the Doxygen Fox stuff.
Thanks!