Mark Overmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, someone starts the holy war (again). Wether you put the docs
in begin or end of the file, or intermixed with the code has a lot
to do with your personal background.
Sorry for the late reply, but I can't let this stand without further
elaboration:
* Juerd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040823 19:46]:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that
David Green wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ever really
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.) (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ()
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that may be
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote:
What if we add Cdoc attribute that the execution compiler would
discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I
believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate
policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
about proposing something like:
sub foo (
Foo::Bar$bar,
Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
+$verbose,
+$foo
) description
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
reasons to
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the
13 matches
Mail list logo
