You rock dude.

-Blake

On Oct 26, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> OK, I made some good progress on the subject, and will publish some
> patches later this week or on next week-end, to gather comments/ 
> reviews
> and directions to where to head this project.
>
> So far, the system does the following:
>  * it can produce html based on RDoc for a modulepath or a module. It
> produces exactly the same thing as RDoc for ruby except that it shows
> defines where the ruby versions shows methods. My ultimate plan  
> would be
> to change the output to something more puppet oriented, which would  
> also
> contains more documentated types (resource collections, virtual
> resources, class included, imports...)
>
>  * and if rdoc is not an option, it can produce html using markdown
> (rdiscount in fact) for a module or modulepath. It produces a  
> hierarchy
> of directories (one per module) containing html files in it (one per
> class or define). That's not really usefull as there is no
> cross-reference, nor index. This part is still rough and doesn't bring
> anything more than the RDoc version (except it doesn't use rdoc:-)).
>
> It yet does support documenting only classes and defines.
> I think I'll release it like that, and from there we'll see how we can
> refine it and move toward something usefull.
>
> On 24/10/08 19:22, Luke Kanies wrote:
> [snip]
>> That sounds great.  I was just concerned because I consider rdoc and
>> ri to be so horribly designed, from a user's perspective, that I
>> assumed it was as bad internally.
>
> Yes, it is badly architectured. But I'm just building on top of it,
> leveraging all the referencing code I didn't want to write.
>
>> And it seems stupidly difficult to,
>> say, dynamically extract documentation from a file.  One thing I
>> *really* want is the ability to get on-demand docs from any file,
>> printed on stdout.
>>
>> I really liked how perldoc could trivially do that, and could produce
>> man pages to boot.
>
> That was on my plan too, but you really don't need to understand the
> language to produce such output. Perldoc justs parses its own blocks
> (block starting with = up to another starting =). It then feeds every
> pod blocks to a formatter than in turns return man, html or whatever.
> Doing the same for puppet can be down with a couple of ruby lines to
> just read the comments strip the leading # and format the result.  
> That's
> the complex part if nroff is needed to display as man pages or on
> console, although the output can still be processed by something else
> (like pandoc[1]).
>
> If you want something like this, that's easy to have based on the
> current infrastructure (I mean the doc stuff in the ast). The only
> drawback is that you have to loose the knowledge of the ast element
> where the documentation is attached (ie there is no more contextual
> documenations). The other issue is the output formatter: what markup
> in the documenation, and what output formatter?
>
> Anyway, I'll publish the patch when it'll be a little bit more  
> polished,
>  that will certainly be the start of a new discussion :-)
>
> Also something that is irritating is that the parsers fails if the
> manifests uses a puppet function defined in external ruby code  
> (usually
> pluginsync'ed). That's the same thing than in --parseonly mode. I  
> don't
> think that's necessary to fail during parsing. Could this verification
> be moved into the evaluation part of AST::Function?
> For the common mortal that parse _and_ compile, that doesn't change
> anything, or am I wrong?
>
> [1]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/
> -- 
> Brice Figureau
> Days of Wonder
> http://www.daysofwonder.com
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to