Author: larry
Date: Wed Jun 13 12:11:02 2007
New Revision: 14420
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
more block comment tweakage
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Author: larry
Date: Wed Jun 13 13:55:24 2007
New Revision: 14421
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Block comments should not hide POD, pointed out by TheDamian++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
On 6/11/07, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, Damian has a good point - which renders the bulk of this
discussion moot. The one thing left to consider (IMHO) is whether or
not it's worthwhile (or even possible) to go back to '$c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+Block comments may be nested within other block comments (with the
+same or differing brackets). POD comments may also be nested within
+block comments. (These are still visible to the POD parser; if you
+wish to comment out a block of mixed POD and Perl 6 code,
Charles Bailey wrote:
I'm concerned that the relevant precedent isn't just Perl5. The ?: spelling
of the ternary is pretty deeply embedded in programming languages -- I'm
hard pressed to think of a widely used language in the past 10-15 years that
spells it differently (though that may say more
Jonathan Lang asked:
What's the rationale for keeping POD comments that are nested in block
comments visible to the POD parser?
The rationale is that Perl 6 and Pod 6 have been designed to be completely
independent and uncoupled. That way, you can look at a piece of Pod without
worrying
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:08:34PM -0400, Charles Bailey wrote:
: I'm concerned that the relevant precedent isn't just Perl5. The ?: spelling
: of the ternary is pretty deeply embedded in programming languages -- I'm
: hard pressed to think of a widely used language in the past 10-15 years that
:
