Comments? Best,
David Begin forwarded message: > From: "Christopher J. Madsen via RT" <[email protected]> > Date: March 15, 2010 10:09:12 AM PDT > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > Subject: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting > codes) > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Mon Mar 15 13:09:05 2010: Request 55602 was acted upon. > Transaction: Ticket created by CJM > Queue: Pod-Simple > Subject: Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting codes) > Broken in: 3.09 > Severity: Important > Owner: Nobody > Requestors: [email protected] > Status: new > Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=55602 > > > > In bug #12239, Schwern expected "C<<< C<<foo>> >>>" to render as a > literal "C<<foo>>", and you changed Pod-Simple to make that happen. But > I disagree with this interpretation of the spec, and consider it a > serious loss of functionality. > > Where exactly in perlpod or perlpodspec does it suggest that characters > inside C<> are treated differently than those inside C<< >>? As I read > the spec, the only difference is in how the end of the code is located. > Once you've located the end of the content (and stripped the mandatory > whitespace from the C<< >> version), it's rendered the same. > > That is, I claim that "C<<< C<<foo>> >>>" is a C<> nested inside a C<>, > and Schwern should have written ""C<<< CZ<><<foo>> >>>" or "C<<< > CE<lt><foo>> >>>". > > perlpod clearly states that "C<$a E<lt>=E<gt> $b>" is rendered as "$a > <=> $b". You're saying that > > C<$a E<lt>=E<gt> $b> > C<< $a E<lt>=E<gt> $b >> > > mean two completely different things, and I don't see where the spec > supports that. > > Otherwise, how am I supposed to write: > > S<< C<< name => value >> >> > > or > > S<< C<< <bug-PostScript-Calendar AT rt.cpan.org> >> >> >
