Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael Mathews,
> If don't think multiline comments are worthwhile, then we should leave it
> out. But I don't see the point in arguing that a functionality should be
> kept out of the language because it can be added to the Text-Editing
> software!!
Agreed :-).
> I am not really arguing about single-line comments anyway. We all know that
> people do use POD to acheive a certain functionality (namely multiline
> commenty types of things). For whatever reason they don't use hundreds of
> pound symbols, but choose to do it with two lines of POD.
>
> The question is is there a better way to accomplish *that*?
I would hope so. As has already been noted, using POD for multiline comments
results in comments which should be internal to the code mixed in with
documenation of, for example, the module's purpose and so forth. The qc()
proposal fits in well with the Perl "look-and-feel" and seems pretty
comfortable to me. If there are concerns about obfuscatory potential, a
use strict 'comments' could require that the qc( opening start in column one.
Further, if qc were flexible about delimiters, those who prefer /* */ could
write
qc/* Here is a comment */;
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
==========================================================
The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators
has succeeded.
-- Burke, Edmund
Reflections on the Revolution in France.
==========================================================
Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted
