On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 01:07:47AM -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 01:47 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >Would you agree to striking out the "Note that the numbers must start at 1
> >in
> >each section, and must proceed in order and without skipping numbers" rule
> >from the =over/=back spec for numeric =items?
>
> No, because that's still true for numeric =items. What I've implemented is
> a rule that coerces numeric-seeming =items into being text =items.
Now I'm confused. Changelog say:
A list that begins with a "=item [number]" line where number isn't a 1
is no longer treated as an error but instead is silently coerced into
being a text-item list, just as if it were "=item wubble" or whatever.
but perlpodspec says this is illegal
o An "=over" ... "=back" region containing only
"m/\A=item\s+\d+\.?\s*\z/" paragraphs, each one
(or each group of them) followed by some number of
ordinary/verbatim paragraphs, other nested "=over"
... "=back" regions, "=for..." paragraphs, and/or
"=begin"..."=end" codes. Note that the numbers
must start at 1 in each section, and must proceed
in order and without skipping numbers.
Unless I'm reading that wrong, it says that the following is legal because it
contains only numeric items, starts at 1 and proceedes consecutively and in
order.
=over 4
=item 1
foo
=item 2
bar
=item 3
baz
=back
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.
=over 4
=item 42
foo
=item 23
bar
=item 13
baz
=back
But you just changed Pod::Simple to accept that without warning. Shouldn't
the spec be altered to match?
> >PS On a related note, I don't understand the whole "=item 1." thing. Is
> >that to say that "=item 1." should be considered numeric and equivalent to
> >"=item 1"? If so, why is this exception in the spec?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking.
> 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.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
I need a SHOWER a BURGER and some ROBOTS, STAT!
-- http://www.angryflower.com/allrigh.gif
