Eryq wrote [seriously elided by jdp]:
>
> they would be even more informative if, instead of
> using =head2 or =item to document our APIs, we had things
> like this:
> =method open FILENAME
> =method
> @type class,instance
>
> That's why I favor taking generally-useful things and providing
> some standardized support for them. Embedding t-tests in
> source sounds intriguing, and a standardized POD-based approach
> seems like a clean solution.
Yes. I'd point out that all these things could be done without
requiring any changes to the pod definition.
The Pod::Parser just needs to be sufficiently, generically
empowered.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
- Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC 79 Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC ... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and ... Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 ... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC ... Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... Eryq
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... Eryq
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC ... Nathan Wiger
- Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC 79 Glenn Linderman
