On 16/03/05 13:30 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 12:25, David Storrs wrote:
>
> > I quite like <> as the bracketing characters. They are
> > visually distinctive, they connect well with their adjacent C/X/L/etc
> > without visually merging into it (compare L<foo> with L[foo]), and in
> > the circumstance that you want to bracket an unbalanced bracket, you
> > just double (triple, whatever) up and add some space:
> >
> > C<< $x > $y >>
> >
> > Looks pretty clear to me.
>
> You are confusing aesthetics with usability. Yes, the above looks clear,
> but then I have to type "C<< " and " >>" just to tell the POD parser
> that there might be unbalanced < or > characters in my string. You're
> failing to apply Larry's rules of Perl 6. Huffman and the "easy things
> easy, while hard things are possible" principles demand that a common
> case not require copious extra gunk, and noting could be simpler than:
>
> C[$x > $y] is about as B[easy] as it gets in [Perl]
>
> vs:
>
> C<< $x > $y >> is about as B<easy> as it gets in L[Perl|perl]
>
> without going full Wikish:
>
> [=$x > $y] is about as *easy* as it gets in [Perl]
vs Kwid:
`$x > $y` is about as *easy* as it gets in [Perl]
Did you really read `perlkwid.kwid`? There is simply no mention
of `[=...]` as a markup option, which makes me wonder where you
got it from?
> However, saving a couple of keystrokes and cleaning up the above text is
> inconsequential compared to the massive savings in terms of taking
> advantage of the legions of people who are learning Wiki syntax these
> days. Making POD *more* Wiki-like without sacrificing useful features of
> POD is invaluable in terms of tech writers and other
> non-Perl-programmers writing useful docs in POD!
Well said!
Cheers, Brian
