Ricardo Signes wrote:
* Allison Randal <[email protected]> [2010-03-16T08:01:49]
David E. Wheeler wrote:
My interpretation of that was that any angle brackets inside should be
considered literal, and thus escaped. The whole point of `<< >>` AFAICS
was to allow one to use literal brackets without escaping them, as one must
do in `<>`.
That's my interpretation too. If you have to escape every angle
bracket inside doubled-up C<<>> tags, there's really no point in
even having the doubled-up tags.
No one is saying that you have to escape every angle bracket inside anything.
For example, these should all be fine:
The ->, or dereference, operator...
Call C<< $object->foo >>
If x > 10
All items where C<< $x > 10 >>
In the event that C<< $x > L<Foo>->blort >>....
In the first four, there is no ambiguity. We don't have something in the form
X<...> where X is [A-Z]. The only thing in question is the last one. The
question is whether all characters until the matching \s>> are considered
literally or whether they're still Pod.
The bug report from CJM seems correct: formatting codes should work inside
C<<>>. There is nothing about that change which would require escpaing -> or
other non-formatting-code uses of angle brackets.
Hmmmm... that does put a different light on it... But, I still think
it's more useful and less confusing as an absolute escape on all angle
brackets within the region. So either a) every angle is literal:
C<< $x > L<Foo>->blort >>
or b) escape all non-special angles:
C<$x E<gt> LE<lt>FooE<gt>-E<lt>blort>
The alternatives suggested:
C<< $x > LZ<><Foo>->blort >>
C<< $x > LE<lt>FooE<gt>->blort >>
Have a design taste of hacks required by a formatting language that's
too limited and inconsistent.
The bug reporter asked how to write:
S<< C<< name => value >> >>
That's just:
S< C<< name => value >> >
The non-interpolation rule doesn't apply until you get to the double-angles.
Allison
