Closed BurdetteLamar closed 3 years ago
@knu, will you be looking at this? If not, can you suggest another reviewer?
This seems mostly fine to me, other than changing the linking to use
rdoc-ref
. However, it probably should be reviewed and approved by @knu.
I agree that it should be reviewed and approved by @knu.
Oh, and thanks, @jeremyevans.
This approach still depends on the specific rdoc generator in use generating ids in a specific format. It would break with an rdoc generator that used a different format. As I already mentioned,
rdoc-ref
usage seems more appropriate here.Note that the same issue applies to the internal links to the headings (e.g.
Creating a Set
). However,rdoc-ref
cannot handle those cases, and I guess the links are better than not linking at all.I don't think I need to review this again, it's up to @knu whether or not to accept it.
I'm not familiar with rdoc-ref. Will study it, and thanks.
Marking as draft while I look at rdoc-ref usage.
@BurdetteLamar If I've already said "I don't think I need to review this again", please do not mark me as a reviewer again.
Sorry, I was trying to take you off.
@knu, I think this is ready for you.
I'm assuming, or hoping that the method names are clear enough in meaning and all you need is the well organized list of methods!
This is nice, but I'm not sure if we should duplicate the descriptions and have two mostly identical sentences for each method. Wouldn't it suffice just to list methods with links in the table of contents?
Thanks, @knu. I'd like to leave the 1-liners in. I think it's in the nature of a summary to be repetitive. Also, this format is consistent with the "What's Here" sections for other classes, which I've worked on with @jeremyevans and @marcandre:
Categorized summary of methods.