On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:18:14 +0100, Alexander Kellett
<ruby-lists@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > I would agree with you in general, but the immediate comparison will
> > be to perldoc, which contains a lot of this information. I think that
> > certain objects (e.g., ARGV, a few others) should be included. I would
> > draw the line at keywords... maybe. It might be nice to find out the
> > semantics of the "for" loop at the command-line from time to time.
> agreed, but globals and constants (which ARGV fits into) should imo
> be documented. or is it implementation problems that stops this?
I think that's what I just said ;)
I don't want to massively overload 'ri', but I do think that it should
be as complete as possible.
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@xxxxxxxxx
* Alternate: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
