* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070622 08:38]:
> And, no, I don't consider the pointers to your excellent module to be 
> suitable specific examples of what we're not giving you...mainly because I 
> believe that the Pod 6 documentation language I've designed (in conjunction 
> with the ability for Perl 6 to parse Perl 6) *does* give you what you need 
> to build such tools.

Well, we tried to avoid the stale-mate discussion, but it's back again.

IMO, POD6 should not provide the possibility to build such tools: it
should *be* the tool. With a nice (compact) standard definition how
to document each of the designed features in Perl6, and in attachment
C some details which explain how Ben Smylers can live in anarchy ;-)

> So it seems we're still at an impasse.

Nah, at least a lot more people are thinking about the subject now.

> I fully respect your decision not to 
> attempt a full alternative design (if anything, your estimate of it only 
> taking "weeks" is optimistic ;-), but unless someone is willing to step up 
> and suggest some specific improvements to the current proposal, how can we 
> move forward towards the best possible result?

If you read it well, I say: "it's a waste of time if the idea of
orthogonalism (full code and doc separation) cannot be discussed".
Because my plans are exactly the opposite: optimally merging doc
and code.  So, it is only a "no" when @Larry says "no".

       Mark Overmeer MSc                                MARKOV Solutions
       [EMAIL PROTECTED]                          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://Mark.Overmeer.net                   http://solutions.overmeer.net

Reply via email to