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]
