On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:16:02PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Sean M Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But anyway, I sense that I'm missing something here, because of my > > almost complete lack of familiarity with *roff: It it merely a cosmetic > > thing whether a Pod formatter leaves an unadorned "foo(1)" as is, or > > puts it in an appropriate style for a man cross-reference? Or are there > > grander non-cosmetic ramifications? > > It's purely cosmetic, but not having it is... strange. It's the sort of > thing that one does if one wants to generate manual pages, rather than > documentation that happens to be written using the -man macro set. :) > > At least that's my opinion. > > But that isn't really a persuasive argument against not requiring people > wrap it with L<>, which isn't particularly difficult to do.
On the other hand, if there's a well defined list of "helpful things" that pod converters can do [man page links, URL-like text links, code like things in code fonts], and an observed "disable helpful things" formatting code, then that would work just as well. It's the current inability to do anything about the expression name(s) turning into a man page link that's frustrating. Nicholas Clark PS is *roff better than perl? :-) -- INTERCAL better than perl? http://www.perl.org/advocacy/spoofathon/
