Brad Appleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 11:28:52PM -0500, Ronald J Kimball wrote: >> Ah, so the problem is a choice between C<@-Z<>> and C<$a-E<gt>[0]>, neither >> of which is particularly readable. > >So why not come up with a patch to the regular expression in Pod::Parser >so that neither one is required? > >I'm the first one to say how much I dislike having that code inside >Pod::Parser to hack things up to allow -> and => in certain cases. I'm >also the first one to admit the overwhelmingly vast majority of p5p >was pretty insistent upon it at the time - which is why I coded it up >anyway, even though my own preference and instincts went against it. Seems like "we" have changed our minds on that one ;-) > >> Code sections (and others, if desired) may begin with one or more >> consecutive left angle brackets, and are terminated by the same number of >> consecutive right angle brackets. Within the code section, any lesser >> number of consecutive angle brackets is ignored (unless, of course, they're >> part of a nested section). Other than at the beginning and end of a >> section, angles would _not_ nest. > >Zoinks - I don't care for that at all. I think it is far more limiting and >restrictive than is necessary. Why not just try to be more precise about >the circumstances under which '>' does NOT terminate a C<...>. Maybe >its not enough to simply be '->' or '=>', perhaps we only want to allow >certain classes of characters to be to the left of '->' and '=>' and >maybe only a select few punctuation characters are in that set. > >Thats a heckuva lot more accommodating and less restrictive than >forbidding most forms of nesting (something which I'm not willing to do >because Pod::Parser gets used for lots more stuff than just translation >and removing the nesting will break lots of code that I personally have >a stake in). Nesting is good. It is particularly natural for HTML/XML back ends. -- Nick Ing-Simmons
