On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:15:23PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
wrote on Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:50:34 -0800:
and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
On the Pod-people list, we have mostly decided that those inference rules
are more trouble than they are worth,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:15:23PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
That's vaguely like the verbatim-formatted stuff that I've been
experimenting with lately, where the second line here:
flock COUNTER, LOCK_EX;
#: ^^^
bolds the characters above the ^.
I'd like to see an
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:49:57PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:40:05 -0800:
: could certainly talk about improvements. As for per-document policy,
: there should certainly be some kind of
:
: =use module
:
: directive that, like Perl's Cuse, is
At 09:43 2002-11-13 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
I thought about putting something of the sort into perldpodspec and
Pod::Simple, but didn't see a particularly clean way to have it so that
1) you wouldn't have to depend on a particular Pod-parsing module, and
which 2) could work in cases where the
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
: I'd love to see a cleaner POD, with tables, better support for lists,
: and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
We used a preprocessor to put tables into the POD for the Camel.
Lists don't seem to occur all
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:40:05AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
: I'd love to see a cleaner POD, with tables, better support for lists,
: and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
We used a preprocessor to put
wrote on Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:50:34 -0800:
I'd love to see a cleaner POD,
Have you looked at perlpodspec, and had a look at the new Pod::Simple
formatters?
with tables,
I like tables, but it is sheer agony to produce tables in many output
formats. I'm starting to wonder whether some kind
From: Angel Faus [mailto:afaus;corp.vlex.com]
I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
of extended POD or something. Something that's mostly content,
little structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be
unproductive, and although the structure is
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:40:59PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
The general Pro's and Con's of POD seem to be:
PRO
===
simple, concise, limited, extensible, forgiving
easy to convert to XXX, easy to write, easy to read, easy to ignore
separates block/inline markup, no special editor
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Adam Turoff wrote:
Two arguments that I don't see listed (and may not have been raised in
the most recent perl6-language version of the debate) are:
So long as someone can come up with a formal POD template that
represents all the fields we need,
Monday 11 November 2002 20:40, Garrett Goebel wrote:
The only consist support for something different than POD... was
for something that is in fact very similar to, and in fact based
upon POD: SDF.
http://www.ifi.uio.no/in228/scripting/doc/sdf/index.html
And the major arguments for
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:47:01PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with SDF?
I played with it for some in-house documentation a couple years ago.
I'm afraid I wasn't very impressed with it; I found it very difficult
to customize the output to what I wanted, and the
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
POD parsers also go to a fair amount of trouble to infer syntax. For
example, a function name like this() will be rendered differently by
many POD processors. This is a good thing, in that you don't have to
litter your
13 matches
Mail list logo
