Even IDE s have problem with named_scopes. I don’t think RDoc can recognize it. Besides looking like a train wreck, that’s one of the reason I don’t like named_scopes.
Code, as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions, would be much more credible.
Bill Walton wrote:
I think you're right, but it wouldn't be hard to patch RDoc to recognize
it if you want to.
Code, as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions, would be much more
The OP's problem isn't mine, so I'm not going to spend the time writing
that code. I was just trying to remind him that it's feasible if he
wants to do it. No more, no less.
In any case, it seems that a patch isn't necessary, based on the feature
mentioned in http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/213558#927241 . I'm happy
to know about that feature, and I will probably use it a great deal.