On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote: > It is nice that you are sharing your thoughts with us - > but frankly speaking I do not see any concrete point. > L<> and =head/=item may not be the perfect solution, > but it is all that's been there for years, and changing > this (by introducing a new anchor syntax) would require > basically to rewrite all POD. Or to provide a semi-perfect
Certainly not. The new anchor would be an addition. In case it was not clear, the rant about =head/=item possible inconsitencies was a side note, maybe trying to convey my ideas on a suboptimal design of the language that I think should not be carried on in further changes in the language. And I think that the L<> semantics is powerful enough to do any kind of link. > and the same way you dislike X<> being an anchor, others > may actually like the idea; and hey - you are not forced > to link against them from elsewhere, are you? I do not disagree on X being rendered as an anchor, but it should be an index entry anchor, not a label anchor. > So perhaps the concepts of POD are not perfect, but they > have been practical for a long time. But maybe there is room for improvement? > So show a patch that corrects things along the lines that > you wrote, which might be more convincing. I am ready to do some patches, but that's not the point here. There are design issues too, on the language itself. -- Pat
