Subject: Re: Phalanx: What if full coverage isn't possible? (fwd) From: stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:26:44 -0400
}As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have }100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I }document private methods? I would personally imagine 100% POD coverage would be all exported methods to start, plus any other method which is intended to have a public interface (e.g. /^_/ subroutines, etc wouldn't be counted) That's not to say that the method shouldn't be documented. But I don't think we need to worry about making the private subroutines documented for public (perldoc, man) reading. }So I guess what I am saying is sometimes 100% POD coverage would not make }sense, and might actually degrade the quality of the documentation by }documenting stuff that really does not need to be documented, and }therefore only serves to confuse the reader. Again, this depends on what you include in 100% coverage. But in my mind, every module should ideally have a POD header explaining its purpose and then the public interfaces and hooks should have their POD documentation. I agree completely that documenting private interfaces within a POD doc will do little to help the average developer who just wants to use the module, and may in fact wind up causing problems for a module developer that changes the internal structure of their module in a later rev. -Pete K -- Pete Krawczyk perl at bsod dot net
