On Feb 24, 2013, at 12:57 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> =head1 TEST
>
> =head2 Return values
>
> =over 4
>
> =item undef
>
> The return value is undefined
>
> =item 0
>
> The return value i numerical 0 (OK).
>
> =item *
>
> Any other value.
>
> =back
>
> =cut
> -->8---
>
> Now it gives m
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> This was due to this change:
>
> https://github.com/theory/pod-simple/commit/5a01eba83824d9f91ecfae302af33fef65a8385c
> Note that this is a warning, rather than a fatal error, though of course
> Test::Pod considers warnings to be test failures.
> In general, I t
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Better (since it doesn't change the formatting):
>
>=item 0Z<>
>
>=item *Z<>
I think S<> would work, too.
David
On 02/25/2013 09:26 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Better (since it doesn't change the formatting):
>>
>>=item 0Z<>
>>
>>=item *Z<>
>
> I think S<> would work, too.
Those are all pretty weird hacks, and make for ugly Pod. Can the leve
"David E. Wheeler" wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:53:29
PST:
>On Feb 24, 2013, at 12:57 PM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> =head1 TEST
>>
>> =head2 Return values
>>
>> =over 4
>>
>> =item undef
>>
>> The return value is undefined
>>
>> =item 0
>>
>> The return value i numerical 0 (OK).
>>
>> =
Russ Allbery wrote
on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:20:11 PST:
>"David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> This was due to this change:
>> https://github.com/theory/pod-simple/commit/5a01eba83824d9f91ecfae30
>> Note that this is a warning, rather than a fatal error, though of course
>> Test::Pod considers war
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> Those are all pretty weird hacks, and make for ugly Pod.
I find most Pod ugly, anyway. But I use C<> all the time in such situations.
> Can the level
> of strictness on =item checking be made configurable? Like, in
> _ponder_paragraph_buffer,
On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Just what we need... more obscure trickery.
>
> Why not replace "=item *" by something friendly like "=bullet" ?
>
> Also quite stupid:
>
> =over 4
>
> =item 1.
>
> First item.
>
> =item 1.
>
> Another item.
>
> =back
>
> Computer
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Better (since it doesn't change the formatting):
>>
>>=item 0Z<>
>>
>>=item *Z<>
>
> I think S<> would work, too.
Just what we need... more obscure trickery.
Why not replace "=item *" by something frie