On May 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Karl Williamson <pub...@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>> My only comment on ‘ExtractPod’ as a name would be that all the other
>> modules in the Pod::Simple dist that do similar things are simply named
>> ‘Pod::Simple::$FORMAT’, (e.g., Pod::Simple::HTML, Pod::Simple::RTF, etc.)
Probably should have been Pod::Simple::Format::*. :-(
>> At the end of the day, you’ve done the work to get it out the door and as
>> far as I’m concerned, you can call it whatever you like. 8^)
>
> It's more a matter of what is the least worst name to help people at a glance
> know what it does. I imagine that if it were named simply 'Pod' that people
> would think. "I've already got Pod input, why would I want Pod output", and
> either investigate, or blow it off. So that's why I came up with ExtractPod,
> but I'd like to hear other opinions.
Like John, I don’t much care. I agree that Pod::Simple::Pod lacks necessary
information. ExtractPod seems fine to me. Uh, though there is this:
perldoc [-h] [-D] [-t] [-u] [-m] [-l] [-F]
[-i] [-V] [-T] [-r]
[-d destination_file]
[-o formatname]
[-M FormatterClassName]
[-w formatteroption:value]
[-n nroff-replacement]
[-X]
[-L language_code]
PageName|ModuleName|ProgramName|URL
So the formatter arg to -M would be:
perldoc -M ExtractPod
Which also seems a little weird. Maybe Pod::Simple::PodFormat?
Anyway, I’ve no strong opinions.
Best,
David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
