On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little wrote: > As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have > 100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I > document private methods?
IMPO yes, but Pod::Coverage (and thus Devel::Cover) will skip any method starting with _ as well as the magic functions (import, DESTROY, AUTOLOAD, etc...). So just name your private functions _foo and you're fine. I document private code like this: =begin private put your normal POD here =end private perldoc won't show the POD but someone reading through the code (and thus needing to know about private functions) will see it. And POD is very readable in its raw form. I use POD instead of comments to avoid having a split documentation standard. > What about modules which are meant to be > configured in the "use" statement, and have little or no subroutines > which are intended for usage outside of the module (which I guess is > sort of like private methods, but not)? They're all private. Name them with _foo(). > What about tied modules? It usually would not make sense to document the > tie hook routines. I've just sent a patch to Richard to skip /^[A-Z]$/ by default. This nails all the magic methods I can think of. I just had an idea. Per module private/trustme lists for Pod::Coverage. =for Pod::Coverage trustme you_cant_find_my_docs() =for Pod::Coverage private im_really_private() -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ "A Masterpiece." "Well, better than average, maybe."
