ice).
I feel the same way you do about Test::Pod::Coverage; its the reason I
haven't added POD coverage tests to my own distributions.
Ahhh, so I'm not alone in this!
It's quite
possible to document a module properly without having a separate =head
tag for each subroutine i
On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:27:26 -0400
James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Glines wrote:
> >
> > Think its worth adding a
> > codingstd test for POD coverage?
> >
> >
>
> No.
>
> Or perhaps: No, not unless you want to start a
Mark Glines wrote:
Think its worth adding a
codingstd test for POD coverage?
No.
Or perhaps: No, not unless you want to start a big "philosophical"
argument about POD coverage.
I say this as someone who dissents from the prevailing wisdom about POD
coverage as it relat
