On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote: >What if we add C<doc> attribute that the execution compiler would >discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I >believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate >policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required documentation of >various classes of elements (though whether anyone would work there is >another question...).
=) >sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.") { > Foo::Bar $bar :doc("what to foo up."), > Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy :doc("Xyzzy to foo bar with"), > +$verbose, > +$foo #etc.... Yeah, I was thinking of something like that. And it's not even uncommon to have comments explaining what variables are for, only this way you'd get something structured instead of just: Foo::Bar $bar, # what to foo up And that means you could do things like... I dunno what it would look like, but... "pdoc Freudian::Slip" to display the usual manpage stuff, or "pdoc --usage Freudian::Slip" to get a certain section, or "pdoc Freudian::Slip &foo" to display just the info from a particular sub (class/method/variable/etc.). And then if POD(??) had some sort of "=lookup &foo" directive, you could have a particular piece of documentation displayed somewhere other than where the code & docs themselves are. - David "that seems simpler than I expected" Green