POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
support for tables and lists.
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
''tom
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:15:22 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
You, masochist.
(duck, and run)
--
Bart.
=head1 TITLE
Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
=head1 VERSION
Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 08:36:32AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
against them. The whole point of this Perl 6 process is to develop a
language that the community thinks is the right direction, right?
Really? I thought the whole point of this was to develop suggestions to
put to Larry, for him to
[Iain, I'd really appreciate it if you'd copy me on your replies to my
posts. The volume is so high that I don't always get time to grovel
through the digests in a timely manner.]
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [30 Sep 2000 02:47]:
However, the
Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
majority seems against using XML-DTD documentation, but granted there are
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
=head1 VERSION
Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
A lot of good, heated
At 08:36 04/10/2000 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
This RFC should either be retracted, or revised into:
POD to XML translation should be easier
On this subject, I have notes about a Pod::SAX module that would make
pod2xml much easier. If I have time to implement it I'll do it, but I can't
tell
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
POD has three mighty significant advantages over XML:
- it is easy to learn
- it is to write
- it is easy to ignore, if you're spelunking for Perl code
Try and do that, when body interferes with STDIN syntactically.
[snip]
Moving towards a
Retracting would have been easier, but could very well be seen as giving up
on pointing out PODs deficiencies.
Pointing POD deficiencies is fine. But the fundamental thrust of the RFC
is still "replace POD with XML". That's why I even noted the alternative
names and corresponding emphasis in
On 2 Oct 2000, at 10:35, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It would be very detrimental to perl's performance to have to do an
XML parse of every input source file.
if the parser can skip between:
=pod
=cut
it can certainly be made to skip
On 2 Oct 2000, at 21:04, Adam Turoff wrote:
If you want to use XML, Latex, Texinfo or raw *roff for your docs,
then by all means do so. Understand that Perl can't be made to
magically ignore embedded Texinfo, and Perl contributors realistically
can't be made to understand/patch/correct
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:15:22AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
support for tables and lists.
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
What kinds of things got added for the camel?
Philip Newton wrote:
I'm not sure that this bit of the third quoted paragraphs is correct:
"It's quite possible that switching to an XML docset produces a beautiful,
unmaintained set of documentation that is of no use to anyone." I think
it's more likely that switching to an XML docset
Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
This is *exactly* why I suggested that the RFC be renamed and try to
work within the constraints of keeping POD. In doing so, it could add
really useful input. Otherwise, it will likely be ignored just like it
was retracted now. And I'd
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
majority seems against using XML-DTD documentation, but granted
I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions in
[Moving this discussion to -meta. See Reply-To.]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:14:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
that's why others can (or
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
fix them.
I don't know whether this is worth a separate improvement # but here goes:
Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enough
19 matches
Mail list logo
