An interesting post the other day: >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:43:44 -0800 >From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Sean M. Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: The eternal "use XXX instead of POD" debate (was: Project Start: >?Section 1) >User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i >X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/ > >On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:49:57PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote: >: Larry Wall wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:40:05 -0800: >: >could certainly talk about improvements. As for per-document policy, >: >there should certainly be some kind of >: > >: > =use module >: > >: >directive that, like Perl's C<use>, is something more than just an >: >"include". >: >: I thought about putting something of the sort into perldpodspec and >: Pod::Simple, but didn't see a particularly clean way to have it so that 1) >: you wouldn't have to depend on a particular Pod-parsing module, and which >: 2) could work in cases where the Pod-parser and the formatter are sanely >: segregated. > >I'd say that neither of those characteristics is true of Perl 5's C<use>, >and yet that's how we got CPAN. Cleanliness is nice, but extensibility >is crucial. > >Larry
-- Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/author/sburke/
