[ruby-core:99358] [Ruby master Misc#17053] RDoc for Hash Keys

[marcandre-ruby-core@marc-andre.ca]

Issue #17053 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).


burdettelamar@yahoo.com (Burdette Lamar) wrote:
> My view has been this:  This is API reference documentation.  Ruby/ruby should have *the reference documentation*, and therefore should omit nothing.

This is a very ambitious goal I'm not sure I share completely. Taking for example the documentation for `Hash`, one would need to talk about covariance of methods returning a hash (i.e. `Class.new(Hash).new.select{}.class` vs `Class.new(Hash).new.merge({}).class`), of treatment of a key `Float::NAN` (which is not `eql?` to itself), of recursive hashes, of the arity of enumerators (see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14015#note-8 ), of the performance of hash lookup / insertion...

All these details can not be repeated for each method, the same way we can't quote in full the floating point standard for `Float#+` and repeat it for `Float#-`, etc. On that subject, an example with `0.1 + 0.2` might be helpful though.

----------------------------------------
Misc #17053: RDoc for Hash Keys
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17053#change-86758

* Author: burdettelamar@yahoo.com (Burdette Lamar)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
@marcandre writes, about the  Hash Rdoc at https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Hash.html#class-Hash-label-Hash+Keys :

> The only thing I would change is that I would shorten the doc on the "Invalid Hash Keys". As far as I know, this is simply not a important concern as nearly all Ruby objects respond_to? :hash and :eql?

> I personally would recommend adding a single example in the Hash.html#class-Hash-label-Hash+Keys section and I would remove the rest, or at least remove the examples. They burden the reader with something that is of no use to them.

I have misgivings:

* Some of this material is very old, like the text and example for user-defined hash keys.
* Some material I consolidated from earlier doc for individual methods, which now link to the relevant sections.
* All is factual, and not repeated elsewhere in the page.

My view has been this:  This is API reference documentation.  Ruby/ruby should have *the reference documentation*, and therefore should omit nothing.

If material such as this is to be included, I see three possibilities:
* Include in-line, as now.
* Link to on-page 'footnote', with Back link.
* Link to off-page rdoc, likely in doc/ dir.

I'd love to hear some opinions on this.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/