Bug #12099: Documentation for Proc#call and Proc#[] missing from Ruby-Doc.Org.

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -
• Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN

[jwmittag (Jörg W Mittag)]

The documentation for the instance methods Proc#call and Proc#[] is missing from Ruby-Doc.Org despite being present in the source: source:proc.c#L731.

I am not sure whether this is an issue with Ruby-Doc, RDoc, or the formatting in the source file, though.

[jwmittag (Jörg W Mittag)]

• Subject changed from Documentation for [`Proc#call`](http://ruby-doc.org/core/Proc.html#method-i-call) and [`Proc#[]`](http://ruby-doc.org/core/Proc.html#method-i-5B-5D) missing from [Ruby-Doc.Org](http://ruby-doc.org/). to Documentation for Proc#call and Proc#[] missing from Ruby-Doc.Org.
• Description updated (diff)

[jwmittag (Jörg W Mittag)]

Jörg W Mittag wrote:

The documentation for the instance methods Proc#call and Proc#[] is missing from Ruby-Doc.Org despite being present in the source: source:proc.c#L731.

I am not sure whether this is an issue with Ruby-Doc, RDoc, or the formatting in the source file, though.

The documentation is correctly present in 2.2.4 and all older versions, and since there haven't been any changes to the documentation comment in between 2.2.4 and 2.3.0, the documentation comment itself cannot be the problem. So, it must be either an issue with how RDoc parses the comment or how Ruby-Doc.Org generates the documentation.

[stomar (Marcus Stollsteimer)]

• Related to Bug #12332: [PATCH] proc.c: fix RDoc of Proc#===/call/yield/[] added

[stomar (Marcus Stollsteimer)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed

Closing, this should have been solved with #12332.