On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > let's try to go with the inlines first, if we see that it's not good. we
> > extract all the inlines into the separate .pod files. This is something
> > that we can do much easier than the reverse operation, assuming that we
> > want the snippets of pod to be scattered around the code.
> >
> > The good thing about inlines is that there is a better chance that the
> > inline docs will be updated on code updates.
> >
> > For distributions we can have all docs in .pod files. We'll make sure that
> > we have .pod, .html, .ps, .pdf, (.xml?) and other formats available on
> > demand.
>
> oh yeah, that's another reason i was thinking of having module docs be in
> their own .pod file, for the docs distribution. if the pod is inlined in
> the .pm, will you extract that into a Module.pod for the docs dist?
> and then, if you install a doc kit that's new than the code, does
> 'perldoc Module' pickup the new Module.pod or pod inside Module.pm?
Yeah, it looks like it can be a problem. I look at how Template Toolkit
does it. It installs the .pod in the same place as .pm, and perldoc looks
up first the .pod file (at least with perl 5.6.1).
Just to be on the safe side and not to confuse people, May be when we
extract the pod parts from the modules, we actually remove them on their
way to blib. So when you have it installed only, the .pod files include
the pod.
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://eXtropia.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
