On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:40:08 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> So I'm tentatively on the side of just leaving things alone, but I
> don't maintain any of the code that tries to generate links and cares
> about the places where this ambiguity might cause problems.
Leave the code alone (for now) but
Karl Williamson writes:
> I don't understand how things have changed. Please explain how in fact
> they have. My belief is that things haven't changed for a long time
> now, and things continue to work, without complaint. There are no
> tickets against Pod::Simple for any cases of it using
On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 15:20 +1000, Ron Savage wrote:
> On 29/05/18 13:49, Karl Williamson wrote:
> > The question is what to do?
> >
> > 1) We could leave things as they always have been, to let sleeping
> > dogs
> > lie. It's worked for so long that we're not seriously going to
> > stop
> >
Hi Karl
See below.
On 29/05/18 13:49, Karl Williamson wrote:
podspec says this:
Previous versions of perlpod allowed for a "L" syntax (as in
"L"), which was not easily distinguishable from
"L" syntax and for "L<"section">" which was only slightly less
ambiguous. This syntax is no longer in
podspec says this:
Previous versions of perlpod allowed for a "L" syntax (as in
"L"), which was not easily distinguishable from
"L" syntax and for "L<"section">" which was only slightly less
ambiguous. This syntax is no longer in the specification, and has been
replaced by the "L" syntax (where
