Re: How would you RTFM for this

That's why I started the perlhints project for Perl 6.

The idea is that either ask for a specific symbol (for example '*') and it gives you a list of possible meanings (multiplication, quantifier in regexes, ...).

The second idea is that you provide it with a piece of code, it uses Perl 6's STD.pm to parse it, and you can get an explanation of each syntactic construct, and where to read more about it.

I'm currently not working active on it because I don't really know what's the best way to implement it. But as soon as the specs on rules and action stubs get a bit more stable I plan to pursue it further.

Perl 6 in German

Comment on Re: How would you RTFM for this

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: How would you RTFM for this by blazar (Canon) on Oct 14, 2007 at 14:05 UTC
That's why I started the perlhints project for Perl 6. I personally believe that this is a fantastic idea. I have thought of it myself, but in the form of a Perl function or method that would do what you propose by extracting the appropriate perldoc documentation as needed - as opposed to yet another external tool. IMHO this would fit nicely in the philosophy of a closer integration between code and documentation and for interactive testing as in the debugger, or pugs itself, not to mention the integration with IDEs and smart editors. After all we can do things like `pugs> say &map.signature; :(@?2 is copy, @?1 is copy)` [download] Why shouldn't we be allowed to do `pugs> say &map.doc; Here goes the explanation for map...` [download] too? So, huh, we will be able to build up our future for our children.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: How would you RTFM for this
by blazar (Canon) on Oct 14, 2007 at 14:05 UTC

That's why I started the perlhints project for Perl 6.

I personally believe that this is a fantastic idea. I have thought of it myself, but in the form of a Perl function or method that would do what you propose by extracting the appropriate perldoc documentation as needed - as opposed to yet another external tool. IMHO this would fit nicely in the philosophy of a closer integration between code and documentation and for interactive testing as in the debugger, or pugs itself, not to mention the integration with IDEs and smart editors. After all we can do things like

pugs> say &map.signature;
:(@?2 is copy, @?1 is copy)
[download]

Why shouldn't we be allowed to do

pugs> say &map.doc;
Here goes the explanation for map...
[download]

too?

So, huh, we will be able to build up our future for our children.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]