Barrie Slaymaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...I wasn't proposing putting =for/=begin...=end processing in
> Pod::Parser, but in Pod::StdParser. Not sure if you were clear on that,
> but other readers of your reply might be confused by it.
Right, sorry. I wasn't sure it was a good place to put the cmd_ dispatch
table either, which is what I meant to say.
> That's them. I agree no big deal. By the time you factor those out,
> and add some "standard" utility (as above & below), Pod::StdParser
> becomes a nice, easy base class to use for parsing, well, *standard*
> PODs :-).
You can't factor out unrecognized E<> sequences; they vary by translator.
You can do the rest, but for =over/=back pairing this is literally one
line of code and would be more complicated to do as a base class unless
you factor out the whole =over/=back/=item processing, something that I'm
not sure could be done cleanly since it's closely related to how lists
have to be output in the target language.
The other two (=item without a tag and unrecognized interior sequence) are
also literally one line of code each.
> Just to get the C<=also> functionality (or whatever syntax), and for the
> sake of factoring out common code (which I would never bother to do if
> it weren't for doing the C<=also> stuff in the first place. "If it
> ain't broke...").
Understood... let me comment on that separately in your other message.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
