On 07/27/2011 07:58 AM, Marc Green wrote:
> I am happy to announce that I have made much progress on porting
> Pod::Checker this week. I have made a list of all the errors that
> Pod::Simple already checks for, and by comparing that to what
Pod::Checker
> additionally checks for, I can efficiently implement the rest. So
that is
> what I have been doing. There is a minor snag in one of the error
checks,
> the one that warns if there is any text after a =pod directive,
because
> Pod::Simple does not offer any way to access said text. To
overcome this I
> am adding such a feature to Pod::Simple::Blackbox, so I should resume
> porting the error checks shortly.
When I looked at this before I found there tended to be significant
disagreement over whether the Pod::Checker checks were actually good
checks that ought to be included in Pod::Simple.
I know this is opening a huge can of worms but I'd be interested if you
could post the list of checks you're adding to Pod::Simple.
Michael
I am not adding checks to Pod::Simple, I was advised that would be a bad
idea (and harder to do). Rather, I am rewriting Pod::Checker to have
Pod::Simple as a superclass instead of Pod::Parser, and in doing so I
need to rewrite the checks *within Pod::Checker* using Pod::Simple.
Rereading my email I realize my ambiguity, but I hope I have now cleared
up any confusion. If not, let me know.
Also, if you still want to see what error checks I am rewriting, they
are available at
https://github.com/marcgreen/perl-pod-checker/tree/edit-bb/cpan/Pod-Parser.
There are three files: ps-errors, pc-errors, and pc-errors-todo. The
first is a list of what Pod::Simple checks for, the second is what
Pod::Checker checks for, and the third is a list of the checks I have
left to rewrite.
Thanks for your concern,
Marc
Here are a couple of pod checker errors that are in error, AFAICT
One is that it warns on any E<> above 255 as being out of range. I
think this is plain wrong, as people do this and it works. Perhaps
there are some circumstances when it is wrong, I don't know.
The other is that it warns that use of a link to a man page with a
section number is deprecated. We have discussed that on this list
before, and as I remember it, the consensus was it should not be deprecated.
