On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:14:56PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 03:16:56PM -0700, Michael G Schwern ([EMAIL
> PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > -The correct code is C<<MAN3PODS => { }>>.
> > > +The correct code is C<< MAN3PODS => { } >>.
> >
> > The odd thing is Test::Pod had no problem with the existing code.
> > Andy? Thoughts?
>
> Test::Pod doesn't do any semantic analysis of the documentation. It's
> only checking formatting.
I honestly don't know what the difference is. The upshot is this:
Isn't C<<foo>> invalid? Or does it mean code("<foo") . '>' ?
Either way, C<<foo>> strikes me as an easy trap to fall into and it would
be useful if Test::Pod checked for that.
