On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 05:31:00PM +0100, Michael Stevens wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 08:58:37AM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote:
People on this list might be interested in the extensions to
Pod::Checker, some of which might be considered for pulling back into
Pod::Checker. Attached is
* Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org [2011-05-01T05:34:08]
a: move to maintaining Pod-Parser as part of the core
or
b: more to eliminating the need for Pod-Parser
and the consensus seems to be that (b) is far less insane. I think that
what's then gone wrong is that no-one wants to start on it,
On May 1, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Michael Stevens wrote:
Is there going to be anywhere we can see progress / heckle?
I was just thinking that we ought to ask Marc to sign up for this list and have
discussions here. Ric?
David
On May 1, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Marc wrote:
I was just thinking that we ought to ask Marc to sign up for this list and
have discussions here. Ric?
Present and standing by ;)
Mac++
This is going to be great!
Best,
David
On 04/29/2011 04:14 AM, Michael Stevens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:12:49PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
* Michael Stevensmstev...@etla.org [2011-04-28T17:03:36]
Has it got a victim^Wvolunteer?
Yup. Marc Green (the student) and David Wheeler and I will have our first
meeting to kick
* Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com [2011-04-27T13:52:50]
I notice that perldoc does not warn on this being deprecated. Is
this by design?
I can't say with certainty, but I would wager that this is an oversight. Maybe
we can get that addressed after 5.14 and, better, can get it into
* Michael Stevens mstev...@etla.org [2011-04-28T17:03:36]
Has it got a victim^Wvolunteer?
Yup. Marc Green (the student) and David Wheeler and I will have our first
meeting to kick things off in a few days. From there on, a state of constant
progress!
--
rjbs
I was reading podspec, and saw this
Previous versions of perlpod allowed for a Lsection syntax (as in
LObject Attributes), which was not easily distinguishable from
Lname syntax and for Lsection which was only slightly less
ambiguous. This syntax is no longer in the specification, and has
