Jim - The current state of that code is that I think it mostly works, but it needs tests (or it needs the tests to be finished). It's been a while since I touched it, I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to get back to it, but I would be perfectly happy if somebody wanted to grab it and wrap it up.
chrs, john. On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:06 AM, James E Keenan <jk...@verizon.net> wrote: > I am writing concerning https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=116467. > The objective of this ticket is to revise t/porting/podcheck.t so that it no > longer depends on CPAN module Pod::Parser. The latter has been designated > "legacy code" but we cannot remove it from the core distribution until > podcheck.t no longer depends on it, either directly (calls to > parse_from_filehandle) or indirectly (via an older version of Pod::Checker > which depends on Pod::Parser rather than Pod::Simple). > > While studying podcheck.t recently I noticed that we could get substantially > closer to our goal if we took the following subroutine from podcheck.t: > > ##### > sub extract_pod { # Extracts just the pod from a file; returns undef if > file > # doesn't exist > my $filename = shift; > > my @pod; > > # Arrange for the output of Pod::Parser to be collected in an array we > can > # look at instead of being printed > tie *ALREADY_FH, 'Tie_Array_to_FH', \@pod; > if (open my $in_fh, '<:bytes', $filename) { > my $parser = Pod::Parser->new(); > $parser->parse_from_filehandle($in_fh, *ALREADY_FH); > close $in_fh; > > return join "", @pod > } > ... > ##### > > ... and could rewrite the 'if' block using a Pod::Simple-based call. > However, AFAICT there is nothing in the latest CPAN release of Pod::Simple > by which one could simple extract the POD from a file and return it as a > single string, POD-formatting intact and otherwise unmodified. > > Karl Williamson noted > (https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=116467#txn-1304150) that there > have been some efforts in this direction, citing: > https://github.com/genehack/pod-simple/tree/add-pod-simple-pod. Could you > advise as to the current state of development of this fork and whether it is > likely to be of benefit to P5P in this instance? > > Thank you very much. > Jim Keenan >
