and the following is illegal because it contains only numeric items yet does not start at 1 and does not proceede consecutively nor in order. [...] But you just changed Pod::Simple to accept that without warning. Shouldn't the spec be altered to match?
Yeah, maybe. In general, I don't consider the rejection of "illegal" forms to be a high priority for parser. DWIM is vastly more important.
> It is my intention in the spec to mean that the two following numeric lists
> should be considered synonymous:
Ok. Why? And why particularly 1. and not 1) or 1:? Seems an odd and unnecessary special case. Unless there's a large body of existing POD which expects this to be so.
There's a large body of existing POD which expects this to be so.
(And as always, we return to the problem: how do we deal with the bodies?)
Anyway, what do you care why "1." and not "1)" ? Is this some Hegelian dialectic? YOW -- Is my aura being AUDITED?
-- Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/
