On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 10:53:15AM -0600, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 11:00 AM 2001-08-20 -0400, Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> >I agree with Philip, that paragraph-based parsing should *not* be removed.
> >The problem of non-empty blank lines is not a reason remove paragraph-based
> >parsing; just declare non-empty blank lines to be the same as empty blank
> >lines.
>
> First off, when did Philip (Newton?) say that [this kind of]
> paragraph-based parsing should be removed? I'd like to see his arguments.
> (I do see his message that asks "Does that mean that the following will be
> misparsed?[...]" but that was just a question (answered: "no").)
Err... I thought he had said that it should not be removed. Apologies if
I'm mistaken.
> So that I can make sure that we're talking about the same thing: What I
> think we're arguing here is just whether or a =foo that starts a pod
> section has to be preceded by a blank/empty line, and also whether a =cut
> that ends a pod section has to be followed by a blank/empty line.
> Correct me if you have something else in mind.
I think pod commands in general should be preceeded by a blank line and
followed by a blank line. But especially a pod command that starts a pod
section should be preceeded by a blank line, in perl and pod parsers.
> >Since the above conventions are just a recommendation (and not even a
> >"processors should...", I don't think this keeps authors from having to use
> >that absurd formatting. Speaking for myself, if parsers are still allowed
> >to expand L<LWP::Simple> as "the LWP::Simple manpage", then I will still
> >write L<LWP::Simple|LWP::Simple> (and still hate having to do it).
>
> I agree. I was feeling benificent in permitting different ways to generate
> implicated link text (i.e., in the case where there was no L<text|...>, but
> on reflection I've come to think that such variance is annoying in the
> extreme, and serves no useful purpose.
> So I will don the iron fist and make this a requirement:
>
> Processors MUST treat L<LWP::Simple> as if it were L<LWP::Simple|LWP::Simple>.
Works for me. :)
> Processors MUST treat L<perlwhatever/"Everything You Ever Wanted To Know
> About The Stuff"> as if it were...
> and there I'm feeling a bit ambivalent.
>
> For the implicated text there, I'm not sure which I like best:
> * Things::Stuff::Guh's section on Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About
> The Stuff
> * Things::Stuff::Guh's section on "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About
> The Stuff"
> * "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Stuff" in Things::Stuff::Guh
Maybe even:
Things::Stuff::Guh / Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Stuff
?
> >> The text in the "=item [text]" paragraph should not match
> >> C<m/^=item\s+\d+\.?\s*$/> or C<m/^=item\s+\*\s*$/>, nor should it
> >> match just C<m/^=item\s*$>.
> >
> >The third regex is redundant with the second. :)
>
> Is it?
> C<m/^=item\s+\*\s*$/> matches "=item *", "=item * ", etc.
> C<m/^=item\s*$> matches "=item", "=item ", etc.
Oops. I was seeing a \ before the * that isn't there. Sorry about that.
Ronald
