Re: RubySpec link-up with RubyDoc

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> For those of you who don't know, RubySpec is a
MediaWiki-based attempt of mine
> to get community members to work together building a
Ruby specification. I
> figure this is the only real way we're going to get to
a complete spec, and it
> would additionally provide a comprehensive online
reference for the language
> itself.
> 
> Ruby-Doc does a great job of documenting what the Ruby
developers have been
> able to document, but it doesn't comprise a spec.
Specifically, deeper details
        [...]

There is some effort, possibly more than one, to revive
rubicon as a
comprehensive test suite, "proving" the assertions
made in the specification
and documentation.  Is there some way of tying these two
together, 
at least so that the spec refers to the tests?

Another thing, off topic for this I suppose, but
  while dreaming do

    What would it take to get Rdoc refactored in such 
    a way that it uses less memory?  I've tried to build
    ruby on old machines, and succeeded, only to have the
    `gmake install-doc` run out of swap.  Is this something
    that someone familiar with google's summer of code
could
    get going, or is that too ambitious?  As we add more
docs
    this problem will increase.

  end

        Hugh

Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 
>> For those of you who don't know, RubySpec is a
MediaWiki-based attempt of mine
>> to get community members to work together building
a Ruby specification. I
>> figure this is the only real way we're going to get
to a complete spec, and it
>> would additionally provide a comprehensive online
reference for the language
>> itself.
>>
>> Ruby-Doc does a great job of documenting what the
Ruby developers have been
>> able to document, but it doesn't comprise a spec.
Specifically, deeper details
>         [...]
> 
> There is some effort, possibly more than one, to revive
rubicon as a
> comprehensive test suite, "proving" the
assertions made in the specification
> and documentation.  Is there some way of tying these
two together, 
> at least so that the spec refers to the tests?

I've not used MediaWiki, but my understanding is that is
quite a 
full-featured tool.    Certainly more so than the wiki that
comes with 
Trac.  But  using Trac means having an easy, built-in way to
link wiki 
content to items in a code repo.

It would be nice to have a way for a spec to refer to test
code designed 
to verify if a given Ruby implementation provides the
correct behavior.

But if test code is neatly partitioned, then a simple svn://
link in any 
document might work just as well.


James

Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 
>> For those of you who don't know, RubySpec is a
MediaWiki-based attempt of mine
>> to get community members to work together building
a Ruby specification. I
>> figure this is the only real way we're going to get
to a complete spec, and it
>> would additionally provide a comprehensive online
reference for the language
>> itself.
>>
>> Ruby-Doc does a great job of documenting what the
Ruby developers have been
>> able to document, but it doesn't comprise a spec.
Specifically, deeper details
>         [...]
> 
> There is some effort, possibly more than one, to revive
rubicon as a
> comprehensive test suite, "proving" the
assertions made in the specification
> and documentation.  Is there some way of tying these
two together, 
> at least so that the spec refers to the tests?

I've not used MediaWiki, but my understanding is that is
quite a 
full-featured tool.    Certainly more so than the wiki that
comes with 
Trac.  But  using Trac means having an easy, built-in way to
link wiki 
content to items in a code repo.

It would be nice to have a way for a spec to refer to test
code designed 
to verify if a given Ruby implementation provides the
correct behavior.

But if test code is neatly partitioned, then a simple svn://
link in any 
document might work just as well.


James