Re: [PATCH] Completion/Unix/Commands/_ri: updated for Ruby 1.9.2

["Benjamin R. Haskell" <zsh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 04:27:35PM -0500, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> > Maybe it makes sense, but it seems weird that the tests are 
> > conditioned on running Ruby scripts rather than looking at `ri 
> > --version`.
> ri --version reports something weird.  I don't know since when things 
> were changed, checking for modules that have been removed or added 
> seems to be fair enough.
>
> Are you thinking there's too much (and too direct) ruby invocations?

Yes, that was the concern.  I guess it's not really that much.  The 
repetitive portion that keeps the arguments that the user has already 
passed:

${(kv)opt_args[(I)-d|--doc-dir|...etc...]}

made me think at first glance that there was more coding than there 
actually is.


> > And how does this fare against different Ruby implementations?  Would 
> > JRuby 1.9.2 necessarily use the same 'ri' conventions as MRI Ruby 
> > 1.9.2?
> Yes.  Latest JRuby supports both 1.8 and 1.9 Ruby versions and have 
> copies of standard runtime libraries (both versions) which includes 
> RI.

Okay.  (Didn't know whether Ruby implementations had different 
arguments [ala C++ compilers].)


> > And more generally, since it's looking in directories that would only 
> > contain Ruby documentation, would it hurt to include both .yaml and 
> > .ri for versions that support .ri?
> I thought about it, yes.  Newer RI doesn't read .yaml documentation. 
> It wouldn't hurt, but it would complete something that can't be shown.

Saynomore.  I was in the process of trying to install 1.9.2 alongside 
1.8.7 on my Gentoo machine, so I couldn't check as much: if the newer 
version can't read it, it makes sense to not show it.


> This patch will un-break ri completion for latest stable MRI Ruby 
> version.  I wrote this completion and I am responsible for that.

Was still broken for me until I added the patch that I just sent.


> However, I am not satisfied with current implementation, I'm working 
> on it.

Out of curiosity, what don't you like at this point?

--
Best,
Ben