On Tuesday 31 July 2007 12:35:06 David Golden wrote: > On 7/31/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) POD can possibly behave any differently on my machine versus anyone > > else's machine, being non-executed text and not executed code > What version of Pod::Simple do you have? What version does everyone > else have? Will POD parsed on your machine always parse the same > everywhere? POD being a mostly-human readable markup language, the possible problem is that the POD renders incorrectly. In this case, the documentation is still available, whether by reading around code incorrectly appearing in the documentation or reading the documentation directly, not through a POD translator/transliterator. This is not a functional failure; it has nothing to do with whether the *code* will behave correctly on a user's system. > "Should you care?" is really your second question: > > 2) "Failures" in POD have any bearing on the use of the distribution, > > especially if an end-user has installed the distribution merely as a > > dependency and not as a developer > > Personally, I think it has little bearing, but not zero -- but your > point is a good one. What does it have to do with the question "Will this code work on a user's system?" > > 3) False negatives are EVER acceptable in tests > > Which way do you mean this? Reporting that a distribution may not work on a user's system (by having failing tests) is a false negative when a failing POD checking test has nothing to do with the functional behavior of the distribution. We might as well make installers also run the disttest action alongside the test action, for all the good this will do them. -- c
