Bug #8213: No documentation for `ri YAML`

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: zzak (zzak _)
• Target version: 2.1.0
• ruby -v: 2.0.0-p0

[injekt (Lee Jarvis)]

I believe the RI output for YAML needs to be fixed to display more detailed information on usage. Currently, it displays nothing. I'm happy to start some documentation on the YAML const in lib/yaml.rb with any pointers in the right direction. View below for more information:

$ ri YAML # Ruby 1.9

= YAML

(from ruby core)

The YAML module allows you to use one of the two YAML engines that ship with
ruby. By default Psych is used but the old and unmaintained Syck may be
chosen.

See Psych or Syck for usage and documentation.

To set the YAML engine to syck:

YAML::ENGINE.yamler = 'syck'

To set the YAML engine back to psych:

YAML::ENGINE.yamler = 'psych'

= Constants:

ENGINE:
Allows changing the current YAML engine. See YAML for details.

$ ri YAML # Ruby 2.0.0 (and trunk)
= YAML

---

Also found in:
ruby core

[zzak (zzak _)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed
• % Done changed from 0 to 100

This issue was solved with changeset r40499.
Lee, thank you for reporting this issue.
Your contribution to Ruby is greatly appreciated.
May Ruby be with you.

---

• lib/yaml.rb: Documentation for YAML module [Bug #8213]

[no6v (Nobuhiro IMAI)]

=begin
Hi, this causes warnings as follow:

$ ruby -ryaml -ve ''
ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-04-28 trunk 40506) [x86_64-linux]
/home/nov/.rvm/rubies/ruby-head/lib/ruby/2.1.0/yaml.rb:83: warning: already initialized constant YAML
/home/nov/.rvm/rubies/ruby-head/lib/ruby/2.1.0/yaml.rb:82: warning: previous definition of YAML was here
=end

[zzak (zzak _)]

@nobuhiro-san Thank you, I'm sorry for this mistake. Please check it now after r40509

[no6v (Nobuhiro IMAI)]

@zzak-san It works without warnings, thank you!

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

zzak (Zachary Scott) wrote:

@nobuhiro-san Thank you, I'm sorry for this mistake. Please check it now after r40509

Is there not a way to tell rdoc to document the YAML module without declaring it in the code?
The "if false" just looks messy to me.

[zzak (zzak _)]

@Eregon (Benoit Daloze) Hi! Yes, nobu pointed out another way here: https://twitter.com/n0kada/status/328342207511801856

Want to write a patch?

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

zzak (Zachary Scott) wrote:

@Eregon (Benoit Daloze) Hi! Yes, nobu pointed out another way here: https://twitter.com/n0kada/status/328342207511801856

Want to write a patch?

Still a bit hacky but sure I will do that :)