* Autrijus Tang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030326 18:25]:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Arthur Bergman wrote:
> I think Pod::OO or Pod::OODoc is less vague and more helpful for what
> this module does. As MARKOV states:
>
> POD is a visual markup language, and therefore information is lost
> about what is being documented. My syntax adds keywords like "=method",
> "=function", and "=overload" to what POD has. It helps a lot with
> doumenting named parameters.
>
> and it seems to me that this implies that OODoc is an extension that
> inherits the POD syntax, instead of something entirely different.
The main syntax of C++ and C is the same, although C++ has a few more
keywords. But programming C++ is quite different from programming C.
How you use a language is (IMHO) more important that the exact syntax.
The use of OODoc differs a lot from the use of POD.
The reason to have some commonality with POD are simple: you can run
these scripts, because Perl skips these lines. It is also easier for
people to convert their documentation.
> Personally, the name 'Pod::OO' sounds much more encouraging for other
> module authors to try on (since it implies that it is compatible with
> the POD syntax).
That's one good point for POD::OO. That's probably the reason that C++
is named that way: to hide the huge step they where actually making away
from C. It may work better from a sales point of view, in the beginning,
but outsiders always ask: "you are a C programmer, can you debug my C++
program?".
The choice is: do I want to lure people into my module as well? I don't
think that commercially. I am not strongly against POD::OO, but its not
my prefered choice.
--
MarkOv %-]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
drs Mark A.C.J. Overmeer MARKOV Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://Mark.Overmeer.net http://solutions.overmeer.net
