Marc Green <[email protected]> writes: > Pod::Checker currently warns if there is an '=item' directive with no > argument (as opposed to '=item *', for example). The description of the > warning is:
> "=item without any parameters is deprecated. It should either be followed by > * to indicate an unordered list, by a number (optionally followed by a dot) > to indicate an ordered (numbered) list or simple text for a definition > list." > perlpodspec states "Pod processors must tolerate a bare "=item" as if it > were "=item *"." Is Pod::Checker's behavior still in line with > perlpodspec? Is the use of '=item' without any parameters deprecated? > Or should that warning be removed from Pod::Checker? I'd remove it. It seems like a style thing to me, and while I personally prefer =item *, I don't see a good reason to require that. > The second Pod::Checker warning I am emailing about is "No =items in > =over", which is explained as "The list opened with =over does not > contain any items." The relevant perlpodspec section states: > "An "=over" ... "=back" region containing no "=item" paragraphs at all, > and containing only some number of ordinary/verbatim paragraphs, and > possibly also some nested "=over" ... "=back" regions, "=for..." > paragraphs, and "=begin"..."=end" regions. Such an itemless "=over" > ... "=back" region in Pod is equivalent in meaning to a > "<blockquote>...</blockquote>" element in HTML." > Given that there is clearly a use for =itemless =over/=back blocks, > should it still be a warning? I think no, and instead, Pod::Checker > should warn about an empty =over/=back block, one that contains nothing > but whitespace. I agree -- this one should definitely go. Thank you for your work on this! -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
