* Allison Randal <[email protected]> [2009-05-25T20:01:29] > Ricardo SIGNES wrote: >> >> I keep telling myself that I am the *only* person who is interested in the >> idea of restructuring perlpodspec to be more... structured. > > Nah, certainly not the first, just the most recent in a series of us. I > mean, perlpodspec itself was written with that very thought in mind, > back when the definition of Pod was "whatever perldoc parses".
Right. perlpodspec is a fantastically useful, practical document. I like it. It's good because it really cuts through the crap and answers all the questions you're going to expect. My only beef, for the most part, is that it's sort of a pile of facts. I will not admit any notion that Pod5 is done for, but I will admit that it's not likely to change much -- so the idea of spending any time making the spec easier on future parser implementors is ... not that great. I thought I might be able to use my new Pod::* code to trivially implement much of Pod6, but once I realized that it was not compatible with the perl5 compiler, I was less enthused. >> I remind myself that if I skip it, I can go play Mario Kart... so far, so >> good. > > Most of us end up writing our own special-purpose variant or extension > of Pod. I'm not sure if that's preferable to Mario Kart. Yeah, that's largely what I'm working on enabling in a better way than what I have now. That wins out, but Random Leisure Activity wins out (for now) over an overhaul of perlpodspec. See you in Pittsburgh! -- rjbs
