Right. Now I remember old threads where people would argue that POD parsers
should do exactly the same as the Perl parser - and IIRC the conclusion was
that using something like PPI to handle pathological cases like multiline
strings or here docs would be an overkill, so POD is what starts with
* Grant McLean gr...@mclean.net.nz [2015-01-07T18:47:49]
I also agree this is a good idea. None of the Latin-1 control
characters that CP1252 replaces with printable characters should be
appearing in POD anyway.
Seems safe, I think. At first, I thought, They're disjunct!! but then I
realized
* David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com [2015-01-08T00:38:04]
I agree that’s too liberal. I suggest
/\A=([a-zA-Z]+\d*)\b/
trolling?
Surely you want [0-9] instead of \d, lest we end up with =headà© !
/trolling?
--
rjbs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
IIRC the first liberal rx is to detect start of POD just like the Perl
(language) parser does, i.e. it pauses parsing for instructions until the next
=cut
I think POD parsers should do the same. If the matched pod-start sequence does
not match any of the known commands, it's an error condition,
On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Marek Rouchal ma...@rouchal.net wrote:
IIRC the first liberal rx is to detect start of POD just like the Perl
(language) parser does, i.e. it pauses parsing for instructions until the
next =cut
Oh. Can someone dig into the Perl parser and confirm this?
I think
Poders,
RT #93491 (https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=93491) reports that URLs
are mis-formatted when they contain a newline. Turns out, the regex that
detects a URL in L explicitly forbids whitespace:
next unless $ell-[$_] =~ m/^(?:([^|]*)\|)?(\w+:[^:\s]\S*)$/s;
On 01/08/2015 11:17 AM, Randy Stauner wrote:
IIRC the first liberal rx is to detect start of POD just like the Perl
(language) parser does, i.e. it pauses parsing for instructions until the next =cut
Oh. Can someone dig into the Perl parser and confirm this?
I think POD parsers
* David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com [2015-01-08T13:42:10]
I think that is probably sane, but maybe there are other opinions? Should we
allow whitespace in L URLs? If so, I think we would just change \S to .
I didn't scrutinize the regexp (which is present in perlpodspec) closely, but
URLs
On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Ricardo Signes perl@rjbs.manxome.org wrote:
I didn't scrutinize the regexp (which is present in perlpodspec) closely, but
URLs may not contain unescape spaces, so I think there's no reason to allow
it.
Lfoo bar|http://baz-barshould be okay
Lfoo
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:42:10 -0800
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
I think that is probably sane, but maybe there are other opinions?
Should we allow whitespace in L URLs?
URLs use + or %20 for spaces. There is no need for whitespace in a URL.
--
Don't stop where the ink does.
10 matches
Mail list logo