Thanks Xavier! I understand that finding a solution is tough using RDoc, which at most supports the cumbersome :call-seq:.
I think the best solution would to be move away from RDoc to something more "advanced". Yardoc is my first choice for projects, but in the case of Rails, maybe switching to TomDoc would be more feasible, since it's compatible with RDoc and uses a "Signature" block for overloaded methods, similar to what is happening now for link_to. If you make any decision regarding how to move forward, I will be happy to help with the transition! On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:22:24 AM UTC-7, Xavier Noria wrote: > > Hi Claudio, > > We have discussed internally a little bit about it. > > We'd like to document return types and possibly params types to the API. > Where type has to be taken as a flexible word, as in YARD conventions: > classes, modules, being able to document duck typing interfaces, several > options, the possibility of being nil, etc. > > But I need to find time in some imaginary dimension and propose a way to > document them. In my mind this needs to be uniform/predictable, compact, > and easy to read. I have some ideas, but need to test them with real source > code. > > So, we also think this is something to improve, and hopefully there will > be a solution in the future. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
