Larry Wall wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > : (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more > : descriptive, perhaps partly based on what we learn here, but > : that'll be in the distant future.) > > You are certainly authorized to experiment with POD variants in the > near future. We've already said that POD will be changing, > particularly in the semantics of =for/=end.
Perhaps Sean O'Rouke (POD person and the Perl6 grammarian) or some other knowledgible individual can point us in the direction any particularly good documentation, articles, and/or code examples of how to mess around with extending POD and pod parsers. Brent Dax wrote: > > Perhaps we can add an =bullet command that's the equivalent of: > > =over 4 > > =item * > > (one paragraph) > > =back > > Unless you're numbering or each bullet handles multiple > paragraphs, there's no reason you need to state the =over/=back > explicitly, IMHO. I wonder if it'd be feasible to do lists something like: *> level1 >> level2 +>>> level3 *>>>> level4 <<<< >>> level3 <<< << > level1 < resulting in: * level1 - level2 1 level3 o level4 2 level3 * level1 Where the * signifies unordered, + ordered, > over, and < back? And if there really is no reason to explicitly require the =back, then it'd look even better: *> level1 >> level2 +>>> level3 *>>>> level4 >>> level3 > level1 Or if the leading = really must be required: =*> level1 =>> level2 =+>>> level3 =*>>>> level4 =>>> level3 => level1 -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]