Markup Gem::Specification documentation with RDoc notations
#5268
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you! |
deivid-rodriguez
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2022
deivid-rodriguez
changed the title
Gem::Specification documentation with RDoc notations
deivid-rodriguez
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2022
Markup `Gem::Specification` documentation with RDoc notations (cherry picked from commit 3b8af3a)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was the end-user or developer problem that led to this PR?
In the generated HTML file
Gem/Specification.html, the codes are not shown as expected.What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
Use correct RDoc notations for code.
Make sure the following tasks are checked