Andy Lester wrote:
We decided to remove FUNCDOC in May soon after it appeared. At the time
it only appeared in a couple of files, so I was surprised to it now
scattered over a couple of dozen files.
Who is "we"? I was entirely unaware of it. I've yanked POD on every
file that I've headerized
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 12:38:49 Andy Lester wrote:
> > We decided to remove FUNCDOC in May soon after it appeared. At the time
> > it only appeared in a couple of files, so I was surprised to it now
> > scattered over a couple of dozen files.
> Who is "we"? I was entirely unaware of it. I
> We decided to remove FUNCDOC in May soon after it appeared. At the time
> it only appeared in a couple of files, so I was surprised to it now
> scattered over a couple of dozen files.
Who is "we"? I was entirely unaware of it. I've yanked POD on every
file that I've headerized, which is all
Andy Lester wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-FUNCDOC: mark_special
+=item C
This is a perfect example of why I want us to use FUNCDOC and not POD.
Who says that we are presenting functions as =item lists? Why is it
presented in C<>? =item C applies two levels
On 18/09/2007, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -FUNCDOC: mark_special
> > +=item C
>
> This is a perfect example of why I want us to use FUNCDOC and not
> POD. Who says that we are presenting functions as =item lists? Why
> is
On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-FUNCDOC: mark_special
+=item C
This is a perfect example of why I want us to use FUNCDOC and not
POD. Who says that we are presenting functions as =item lists? Why
is it presented in C<>? =item C applies two levels of
presentatio
