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
On 04/24/2011 06:19 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
>
> I have just taken a look at this. They totally screwed up `=for`. A
> `=for` paragraph does not need a `=end for`.
That was a decision made by the early developers of PseudoPod, and I
kept it in my implementation for backward compatibility in par
On 04/25/2011 08:09 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
> On 04/23/2011 11:53 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> I was thinking that PseudoPod implemented most of what might be
>>> needed, and so why not ship that.
>>>
>>> Its table spec looks quite
On 04/23/2011 03:12 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 04/23/2011 01:09 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
I don't know how to put a table into a pod. One can simulate it by using
as-is formatting, but it's not very good.
There also doesn't appear to be a way to extend the pod language in a
backwards compa
Russ Allbery wrote:
This is not the sort of thing that one gets to change retroactively, I'm
afraid, no matter how nice it would be for consistency.
Agreed on keeping Perl 5 pod changes minimal, but I thought it always
worked that way. Does anyone have an old pod parser around to test?
Where
Ricardo Signes wrote:
* Allison Randal [2010-03-16T08:01:49]
David E. Wheeler wrote:
My interpretation of that was that any angle brackets inside should be
considered literal, and thus escaped. The whole point of `<< >>` AFAICS
was to allow one to use literal brackets with
David E. Wheeler wrote:
My interpretation of that was that any angle brackets inside should be considered literal, and
thus escaped. The whole point of `<< >>` AFAICS was to allow one to use literal
brackets without escaping them, as one must do in `<>`.
That's my interpretation too. If yo
Ricardo Signes wrote:
* "David E. Wheeler" [2009-12-01T14:03:21]
Jesus Christ.
I don't think they should be in Pod::Simple. So I'd like to remove them.
Anyone else have any opinions? Allison? HDP? RJBS? TorgoX?
I do not like them in Pod-Simple. I think if they are in Pod-Spec, it's a
little
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Dec 11, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
http://github.com/rjbs/pod-simple/tree/xhtml-region
David and I spoke about this on AIM a little...
Right now, given this input in Pod::Simple::HTML:
=begin html
...
=end html
The HTML is passed through untouc
Ricardo Signes wrote:
I would like to refactor the code as I work so that methods are easier to find,
use, and replace as needed. Maybe I can fill in some of the "to do"
documentation, once I understand what the hell is going on.
Is anyone going to be put off by these kinds of changes *in gene
David E. Wheeler wrote:
Makes sense to me, but I think that you need to update the regex to include the
(optional) parameter. Something like:
C
Best is to keep the regex the same for the formatname (which is strictly
defined), and just say "everything after the space to the end of the
li
Ricardo Signes wrote:
I'd like to extend this definition a bit. I would replace the second paragraph
with:
"=begin formatname"
"=begin formatname parameter"
...
It is advised that formatnames match the regexp
"m/\A:?[−a−zA−Z0−9_]+\z/". Everything following whitespace aft
David E. Wheeler wrote:
FWIW, Pod::Simple already parses things as you expect. Here's the relevant
comment:
Yes, as David says, no problem, Sean actually implemented it years ago
in Pod::Simple.
# L
# L or L
# L or L or L<"sec">
# L
# L or L
# L or L or L
# L
# L
So I'll
Tom Browder wrote:
Solved! But what about Perll 5? I'm using a preprocessor for now,
but =use would be very handy.
It's unlikely that any Pod format changes will go into Perl 5, but you
may see the Perl 6 version available to use later this year.
Allison
Tom Browder wrote:
I would like to see Perl pod have a native include command so that a
pod chunk can dynamically include the text at, for example, pod2usage
time.
I would like to submit that as a desired enhancement but assume it
needs to be discussed here first.
See =use in the Perl 6 Pod s
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I keep telling myself that I am the *only* person who is interested in the idea
of restructuring perlpodspec to be more... structured.
Nah, certainly not the first, just the most recent in a series of us. I
mean, perlpodspec itself was written with that very thought in
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I am not clear on whether this paragraph says or means much:
Throughout this document, "Pod" has been the preferred spelling for the name
of the documentation format. One may also use "POD" or "pod". For the
documentation that is (typically) in the Pod format, you may
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
perlpodspec gives "two syntaxes" for formatting codes. There's X and
X<< content >>. In the "two or more angle brackets" form, the whitespace
immediately following << and preceding >> are not renderable. That's fine, but
I'm confused as to why that isn't just the universa
John McNamara wrote:
>>"=item 1" equates to an list item.
>No, it's not, because it requires the POD generator to manually number
things.
In terms of pod generators yes but in terms of pod consumers the numbers
don't always have to be in order. For example in Html the doesn't
require t
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I released Pod::Elemental a few days ago, and just write up a blog post about
it. I'd be interested in comments from the list, if anybody cares enough to
look at it.
http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1690
Never let the establishment stand in the way of experimentati
Yesterday I released Pod::Simple 3.05, a patch catch-up and bug-fix
release. Special thanks to Jerry Hedden, Ken Williams, and Christopher
Madsen for their patches, to Rafael for pulling together bug reports
scattered across several systems, and to James Ponza and the CPAN
testers for submittin
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
There's certainly room to do it better, but I was only attempting to do
exactly what Pod::Parser does. blessed won't work for a vanilla globref.
I'm specifically not looking to do it exactly like Pod::Parser
(Pod::Parser is b0rken), but am looking to provide ne
On Feb 9, 2006, at 23:25, Andy Lester wrote:
The only alternative I can think of that might make sense is
naming them Pod::Webserver::Daemon, Pod::Webserver::Request, etc...
I think that makes sense, since you're not really putting them out
there to be reused.
Change committed. (I was alr
On Feb 2, 2006, at 9:46, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I wasn't sure if Mock::* was the best name to use.
I think it's appropriate, since it really is just mocking a subset of
the behaviour of the HTTP::* modules. The only alternative I can
think of that might make sense is naming them Pod::Webser
I've just applied a patch to Pod::Webserver from Nicholas Clark,
based on a concept Nick and Sean discussed a while ago. The patch
eliminates the dependency on LWP by mocking (or duplicating) a
limited subset of the functionality provided by HTTP::Daemon,
HTTP::Request, HTTP::Response, and
I released Pod::Simple 3.04 today. It includes Steve Peters' test
patches for integrating Pod::Simple into the core, Craig Berry's
patch for extracting package names on VMS, and the reinit method for
supporting backward compatibility features in Pod::Man, etc.
Allison
On Jan 11, 2006, at 11:49, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
I'll release Pod::Simple 3.04 as soon as you confirm it works (or we
fix anything that doesn't work), and as soon as I hear back from
Steve on his test patches for including Pod::Simple in the core.
Sorry it took me so long to look at
On Dec 14, 2005, at 16:22, Russ Allbery wrote:
Would you override 'parse_file' and 'parse_from_file' so they call
'reinit'? Potential threading issues there, but a tolerable kludge
for backward compatibility.
Hm, sure, I can do that. Those are the only two interfaces that older
callers of Po
On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't think there's really much advantage beyond supporting code
that
assumed one could reuse an object, but I'm happy to add in a call to
reinit so that the old code would continue to work.
Would you override 'parse_file' and 'parse_from_fil
On Dec 13, 2005, at 20:16, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Since it was an undocumented but counted-on interface, I'm not sure
how to resolve this, but I wanted to raise the issue here to start
discussion about resolution, and also to let y'all know that your
man commands will fail magically soon. :)
On Nov 29, 2005, at 17:47, Tels wrote:
So, I am now excited that maybe the new maintainer can find some
time and
insight, and/or I can submit a bugreport about Pod::Simple (yes, I
know,
slightly unfair of me :)
Yup, send me the code and I'll take a look.
Bug reports are always happily we
I just uploaded Pod::Simple 3.03 to PAUSE. It's a patch catchup
release, no major changes. It's also in my public subversion repository:
http://svn.lohutok.net/nam/trunk/perl5/modules/Pod/Simple/
Allison
On Nov 15, 2005, at 9:40, Gabriel Berriz wrote:
I understand this is a FAQ but I have not been able to find the
answer: is there a way to include chunks of POD within another POD,
something in the same spirit of a C #include?
We do this pretty extensively in POD book manuscripts. Particularly
33 matches
Mail list logo
