Initially, the module author adds a list of keywords to the pod doc. In addition a KWIC approach would generate more---it is hard to 'over' cross reference information. For that matter keywords could be harvested from reviews as well.
Certainly search.cpan.org is of value, no argument there. I just hesitate to remove something unless it is of no value or is actively doing harm... --hsm > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Hicks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:48 AM > To: Hugh S. Myers > Cc: 'Tim Bunce'; 'Andy Lester'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Perl 5 Porters'; > module-authors mailing list at perl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Let's eliminate the Module List > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hugh S. Myers wrote: > > > It seems to me that ANY thing that contributes to the solution set of > > 'How do I find the module I'm looking for?' needs to be kept until it > > can be replaced with something of equal or greater value. > > search.cpan.org seems to be of greater value than the modules list > according to most of the people that have chimed in. > > > 2. Push hard on the notion of adding a keywords item to the 'standard' > > for pod documentation. > > What should those keywords be? Who decides? I'm personally much more > interested in seeing a dmoz-ish hierarchy so related modules can be easily > found and compared. > > -- > </chris> > > There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make > it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way > is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. > -- C.A.R. Hoare
