Marek Rouchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> all of your TODOs seem to be more than sensible to me. Concerning
> pulling up code to Pod::Parser or some other more general place is
> sensible, on the other hand it may come with a performance penalty that
> may be crucial as you once said. You may want to have a look at
> Pod::Compiler (available on CPAN); it is an additional layer around
> Pod::Parser that does a number of things you mention below. It may
> however not be fast enough for online execution e.g. by "perldoc". See
> also some comments below.
I did take a look at Pod::Compiler the other day, and honestly I found it
far too confusing to wrap my mind around. Admittedly, I felt that way
about Pod::Parser the first time, but what Pod::Compiler is doing (namely
building a parse tree of some kind, I think) feels just all wrong for the
translators I work on. (It may be exactly what you want for HTML and
LaTeX translators; I don't know.)
But maybe I just need more convincing that this is the right way to go?
> RA> * Introduce a new interior sequence for footnotes. (Tom Christiansen is
> RA> currently using [FOOTNOTE: ...], but I think an interior sequence would
> RA> be better; F<> is already taken, though.) This is lower priority,
> RA> since it's unclear how to do a footnote in text or *roff output anyway,
> RA> but it's useful in other contexts.
> What about N<> for foot_N_ote?
I think that's probably the best of the proposals that I've seen for
handling footnotes.
> Another extension of POD I would personally like to see are tables:
Yeah, this has been discussed on p5p in the past. My read is that there
was general consensus that if you want things like tables, switching to
SDF would be a better approach.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
