On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 06:02:21PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> The point is that what you suggest is too much work. You aren't
> ever going to get people to add all your gratuitous lint-happiness inserts
> to all their docs.
>
> Therefore, the best you can do is autocheck what's there, and hand/eye-check
> whatever it doesn't like. Don't invent complicated new systems. You're
> overengineering technically and underengineering socially.
Well, we can try both. An autocheck utility would be really useful
for most code. For the internal docs, where I'd like to be a bit more
strict and consistent, we can use something like '=for example'. The
conversion process will initially be tedious, but its O(1). I'll try
converting something like perlfunc to get an idea of how long it takes
(or somebody else can). Thereafter it will be a matter of watching
each doc patch as it comes in and adding a '=for example' where
necessary (and encouraging patchers to do so themselves.)
I really, really, really want tests that either say "ok" or "not ok".
Not "these three tests failed by that's okay its just the autochecker
making a mistake."
On the issue of compatibility, we can use a POD autoconverter as Tim
suggested to translate the '=for example's into C<> as part of the
release (or build) process. This avoids the necessity of patching all
the POD utilities.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
But why? It's such a well designed cesspool of C++ code. Why wouldn't
you want to hack mozilla?
-- Ziggy
