Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> My point is (C), this is a discussion about POD tools, and there is no
> need to form a consensus about that. We will have a need for better tools
> over time, and we will most likely get better tools over time.
>From my point of view, the discussion was about how to implement =alsofor
and =for test, and I developed just enough demo code to play with to make
sure it was at least workable.
I'm not sure how much of that was/is Marek's motivation.
FWIW, I really like =for test and =alsofor, but I didn't see much interest
from the "general japh public", so I suspect it's a go-nowhere pair
of initiatives, or at most go-to-CPAN-as-modules initiatives.
And, there were much weightier POD discussions going on over in
perl6-language last time I checked.
> So, on the one hand, I feel it's outside the charter of perl-qa to resolve
> this. On the other hand, there's nothing about Perl6 that requires
> consensus about POD tools out the gate.
Those sound like two arguments on the same hand ;-).
> QA of POD is a perl-qa issue, but POD features and POD formatters are not.
The POD features under discussion are testing features. The discussion
of SAXish vs. DOMish was a tangent only.
- Barrie
