On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 07:49:59PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:25:43PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > 3) =begin preamble/=end preamble/paragraph to test is compatible, but its
> > kind of annoying to write (or even explain) and will run into problems
>
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Barrie, you suggested it, so its your babe now! You have the option
> to sketch out a new RFC and start working on this or punt the
> responsibility to somebody else.
I'll take "sketch out a new RFC" for $200, Michael. I'll also tie it
in with the =for test stuff.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:25:43PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> 3) =begin preamble/=end preamble/paragraph to test is compatible, but its
> kind of annoying to write (or even explain) and will run into problems
> with multi-paragraph examples. However, it is compatible and should
>
We have an interesting knife edge to walk here. We'd like to
automagically test example code with a minimum of work on the POD
author's part, and yet avoid false negatives. We also have to keep
POD simple to write. On top of that, we'd like to keep it backwards
compatible.
So we've got a few a
