* Sean 'TorgoX' Burke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06 Sep 2003 05:35]:
[...]
> Anyone have any preferences either way? I think I might be leaning
> toward the former approach (where =headN closes =over) just because I
> think most cases of people apparently having a =head1 inside an =over
> are actually
Err on the side of DWIM-ness.
--hsm
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean M. Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: =head1 inside =over
>
>
> So I was running Pod::Simple on some test documents and noted a document
> where
Sean M Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, I'm thinking of saying that =headN's can't be inside =over's, so
> that if such is found, it will DWIMically close the open =over. But
> going the other way, I'm thinking "no way, there's nothing wrong with
> having a =headN inside an =over! Don't
So I was running Pod::Simple on some test documents and noted a document
where the author forgot to close an =over, and so it contains the whole
rest of the document, including several =head1's. Here's a test case:
=head2 BLOOP
Hoopbehwo!
=over
=item Stuff. Um.
Brop.
=head1 SVUP
Myup.
=
