Err on the side of DWIM-ness. --hsm
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean M. Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: =head1 inside =over > > > So I was running Pod::Simple on some test documents and noted a document > where the author forgot to close an =over, and so it contains the whole > rest of the document, including several =head1's. Here's a test case: > > =head2 BLOOP > > Hoopbehwo! > > =over > > =item Stuff. Um. > > Brop. > > =head1 SVUP > > Myup. > > =cut > > And here's how it was dumped by Pod::Simple::DumpAsXML : > > <Document start_line="2"> > <head2 start_line="2"> > BLOOP > </head2> > <Para start_line="4"> > Hoopbehwo! > </Para> > <over-text indent="4" start_line="6"> > <item-text start_line="8"> > Stuff. Um. > </item-text> > <Para start_line="10"> > Brop. > </Para> > <head1 start_line="12"> > SVUP > </head1> > <Para start_line="14"> > Myup. > </Para> > </over-text> > </Document> > > Now, I'm thinking of saying that =headN's can't be inside > =over's, so that > if such is found, it will DWIMically close the open =over. > But going the other way, I'm thinking "no way, there's nothing wrong with > having a =headN inside an =over! Don't OPPRESS ME with your rules, you > FASCIST! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!!". > > Anyone have any preferences either way? I think I might be > leaning toward > the former approach (where =headN closes =over) just because I think most > cases of people apparently having a =head1 inside an =over are actually > mistakes and that they really meant to close the =over. > -- > Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/ >
