Juerd Waalboer writes: > Damian Conway skribis 2007-06-21 11:45 (+1000): > > > A dedicated OO documentation tool could certainly do a better job in > > that case, I heartily agree. I'm looking forward to using one. > > This dedicated OO documentation must be core, because Perl itself is > heavily OO.
That doesn't follow. > If we are to ever have consistent, semantic, structured OO > documentation throughout CPAN (and numerous in house projects), we > must start with Perl itself, I disagree. perldoc.perl.org was started by JJ, gained popularity, and then got awarded the official blessing of the onion. Over the years there have many several sites with Perl documenation. Let the same thing happen with Perl 6: allow innovation, and if you, or Markov, or anybody creates a particularly fine site then people will admire it, use it ... and then perhaps it can be made official. There isn't really anything to be gained by pre-empting this and picking something initially. Documentation, unlike code, doesn't have to be backwards compatible: if Perl 6.0.1 changes the API of a standard function that will break existing code; but if Perl 6.0.1 has documentation with a different structure from Perl 6.0.0, that won't break anything. Also it's much easier for people to get the benefit of documentation improvements than of code improvements. If Perl 6.0.1 introduces a new feature then I need to upgrade from Perl 6.0.0 on all my computers to be able to use it; but if Perl 6.0.1 has improved documentation then I can read, browse, and search that documentation on its website without needing to upgrade any of my computers. Smylers
