On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:00:19AM -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote: > At 03:08 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >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.
DWIMness be built into the spec. > >> 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. Fair 'nuff. > (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? Just trying to understand the spec. -- 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
