On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:58 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> * "David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> [2010-07-25T13:40:24] >>> For the purposes of this thread, my question is: Should we support `=item 1. >>> foo` as creating an ordered list item the way we support `=item * foo` as >>> creating an unordered list item? I vote yes, as it seems more consistent, >>> and >>> we're not going to remove the latter. What about the rest of yous? > > On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > >> I would rather not. I'd rather leave them as simple as can be. The fact >> that >> there is a long-standing bug in Pod::Simple isn't a good reason, to me, to >> make >> the specified behavior any more complicated. > > Vote noted. To me it's not a bug; I've actually used this syntax, and always > considered it a feature.
Coming back to this, now that we're trying to get Pod::Simple ready for Perl 5.14. Anyone else want to vote? The only other thing I'd add is that pod2html (which IIRC uses Pod::Parser) treats `=item 1. foo` and `=item 1 foo` as ordered list items, and both pod2html and Pod::Simple treat `=item * foo` as ordred lists. I'd like to make them consistent. RJBS would not. Anyone else want to chime in? Thanks, David
