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