* Casey West ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030221 14:11]: > It was Friday, February 21, 2003 when Mark Overmeer took the soap box, saying: > : Well, only the "see you a use for yourself" question of my e-mail is > : answered. Apparently not for your code. What remains is that I see a > : good use for myself (and many other OO modules). So the remaining > : questions I ask to the members of this POD discussion group remain: > : > : 2) If I extend my concept into a usable module, would the "community" > : accept it as alternative to plain POD? > > No. You do want an alternative to POD, but you won't find many people > lining up to use it. Someone mentioned JavaDoc, that is a possibility > here. Or something XML based, which describes your class and it's > recursive OO hierarchy.
I would really like you to take a look at the HTML which is produced, and then look back at this answer. No, you do not have to specify the hierarchy yourself, because that's easy to automatically detect when the documentation is constructed, at the moment that the distrubution is build. (The docs are visible at http://perl.overmeer.net/mailbox/html/) > This is most certainly a special case. Having written several deep > class based libraries (not on the CPAN, but documented with POD), I > have not found the need to extend POD. The 'SEE ALSO' standard > section does well for me. I also put a description of base classes, > and sometimes sub classes, in the 'ABSTRACT' section. I think that is the main difference: CPAN. I nearly always know in which class I have to look, because I wrote the code. Other people who try to use your code usually have more problems finding the right class, certainly when they don't know the name of the method they need in the first place. > : 3) What name-space should my module take? > > Sounds like you really want something in your own distribution, under > tools/, bin/, or utils/. Something like, 'build_pod.pl'. Sorry, that's not the target of my original posting. I know how distributions are built (have made quite a few of them) I do not want to distribute the script with my package: I asked about providing this facility to other people documenting their OO modules. I spoke about the difference between logical en visible markup. With Perl6 coming up (in the not-to-near future), it might be useful to think about a POD6 as well. Perl6 will have nicer OO, so probably more OO programmers. POD is sufficient for small packages, but not for the some complex OO structures. -- MarkOv %-] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ drs Mark A.C.J. Overmeer MARKOV Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Mark.Overmeer.net http://solutions.overmeer.net
