Misc #21688: Ruby::Box maturing path

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

A quick couple of questions in the light of upcoming Ruby 4.0 release and Ruby::Box being available there (even if as an experimental feature):

1. Should the documentation of the class be available as RDoc? I mean, as standard class documentation at https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Ruby/Box.html (404 currently). It seems like RDoc-formatted comments are present in the code but never rendered. Are PRs to make the docs rendered and/or improve/expand them welcome, or would it be just distracting?
2. Should small(ish) problems/suggestions be reported? Can they be submitted as PRs? (I mean, things like "in some cases, #inspect of the class in the Box is weird", and other stuff like this) Or this would be just distracting from the main work?

Thanks.

[NuriYuri (Youri Nouri)]

Hi, I've read the box.md file as well as parts of the box.c file.

I'm also very interested into that project but as far as I understood it's not yet ready (some stuff are still to be done as well as some additional tests). I'm sure the rdoc will be added once Ruby::Box is completed.

On my side I believe it's wise to wait for 4.0 to be released because right now there's a lot of pressure on the other issues introduced by 4.0. In January it'll probably be a bit easier for the maintainer to deal with Box issues.

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed

Applied in changeset git|4a0e01d7681e72919f1fae7bc9db744e5a3fbe8c.

---

[Misc #21688] Teach RDoc about the toplevel module Ruby

Re-open the exising module by calling rb_define_module.
RDoc (RDoc::Parser::C#do_classes_and_modules) does not recognize
rb_path2class as a class/module definition.

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

• Status changed from Closed to Open

NB: Tentatively reopening this ticket, as it was autoclosed by the referring commit, but the ticket's scope is not only about the inclusion of Ruby::Box in the RDoc output.

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

zverok (Victor Shepelev) wrote:

2. Should small(ish) problems/suggestions be reported? Can they be submitted as PRs? (I mean, things like "in some cases, #inspect of the class in the Box is weird", and other stuff like this) Or this would be just distracting from the main work?

Any problems/suggestions/PRs will be welcome to report, of course.
The Box is no different than any other issue.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

Can we close this?

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed