On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 10:21:11PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> I'm thinking that =for example is probably a little off the mark,
> and =for test combined with =also is closer.
Two different concepts. =for test (or =for testing) would be for
embedded tests which are run but *not* displayed. =for example would
be for code examples in POD which are for display and rudimentary
testing.
It might be nice to be able to chain tests together and indicate
optional test files, etc, etc, etc... but let's hold on any additional
complexity until we've used the basic version a bit.
--
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
