> I guess mostly the syntax highlighting is the biggest concern. I
> use emacs and that does syntax highlighting for perl files. Is there any
> IDE out there that highlights POD differently than code? If that was the
> case then I probably wouldn't have a problem with in-module POD. I gue
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:27:18AM -0400, Potozniak, Andrew wrote:
> I guess mostly the syntax highlighting is the biggest concern. I
> use emacs and that does syntax highlighting for perl files. Is there any
> IDE out there that highlights POD differently than code?
emacs cperl-mode wil
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Personal and asthetic style nits cannot be part of any code analysis that
> claims to be non-partisan or even wishes to exist. It will make the analysis
> worthless since nobody will agree on what you feel is "good" style. Stick
> to choices that d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 18 August 2003 16:17, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Potozniak, Andrew wrote:
> Ironicly, the style you don't like in #1 is the very style you promote in
> #2. Replace '"black box" commenting' with POD docum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Potozniak, Andrew [2003-08-18 10:27]:
> > Might I suggest a good syntax highlighting editor?
>
> I guess mostly the syntax highlighting is the biggest concern. I use
> emacs and that does syntax highlighting for perl files. Is there any
> IDE out
* Potozniak, Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [19 Aug 2003 00:28]:
[...]
> I guess mostly the syntax highlighting is the biggest concern. I
> use emacs and that does syntax highlighting for perl files.
Surely it highlights pod distinctively?
> Is there any IDE out there that highlights POD differentl
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Potozniak, Andrew wrote:
> Since we're on the topic of scrutinizing CPAN distributions I would like to
> contribute something that I do not like in some of the distributions that I
> have come across. I don't know if it has been brought up on this thread y
>
> Personal and asthetic style nits cannot be part of any code
> analysis that
> claims to be non-partisan or even wishes to exist. It will
> make the analysis worthless since nobody will agree on what
> you feel is "good" style. Stick to choices that don't rely
> on asthetics.
>
> Consi
Since we're on the topic of scrutinizing CPAN distributions I would like to
contribute something that I do not like in some of the distributions that I
have come across. I don't know if it has been brought up on this thread yet
but here it goes:
1) I do not like in-module POD as it is ha
