John Porter writes:
: Michael Mathews wrote:
: >
: > This ... underlines why POD is not a good way to comment code.
: > ...
: > This RFC would seem to address the issue quite neatly.
:
: So, are you saying that if this RFC is implemented, POD would be
: an good way to comment code?
It already is, as far as I'm concerned.
The view that the POD contained within a file specifies a single
document is oversimplified. The moment we added =for and =begin/=end,
POD became a way to specify multiple, independent documents in the same
file. Each keyword following =for or =begin/=end specifies a different
abstract document. If one of those abstract documents happens to be
commentary on the code, great. Not all of those abstract documents have
to be intended for external POD viewers, assertions to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Seems like all we're discussing now is how much those independent
documents should be independent (where the code itself is considered
one of the documents).
Larry
