As I stumble past this list, which I don't follow much anymore, I'll
give a few responses to, but not definitive answers to, some issues
that are either because of things in perlpodspec, or because of things
not in Perlpodspec.
Here goes...
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:24:30PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> The main reason why I dislike an additional A<> is that since
> the existence of POD nobody really needed it - since anchors
> for L<> are created by =head and =item. And as Perl stands for
> simplicity and efficiency, you certainly
ot;don't change the semantics
of X<> being an index entry" - which IMHO does not prevent
us from _extending_ its meaning.
-Marek
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: 'Patrice Dumas' [mailto:pertu...@free.fr]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Januar 2012 18:46
An: pod-people@per
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:33:01AM +0100, 'Patrice Dumas' wrote:
> My personal opinion (and it shouldn't be really surprising, since I
> also wrote a mail proposing a new command for anchors...) is that
> index entries and anchors are different, serve a different editing
> purpose and should be
On 01/29/2012 05:31 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Patrice Dumas writes:
Then, in my opinion, in that case the pod specification should be
changed such that X<..> is not referred to as index entries, but anchors
(or labels). I think that it certainly makes more sense to have labels
than index entri
Patrice Dumas writes:
> Then, in my opinion, in that case the pod specification should be
> changed such that X<..> is not referred to as index entries, but anchors
> (or labels). I think that it certainly makes more sense to have labels
> than index entries in Pod since there is no command to a
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:14:16PM -0500, Marc Green wrote:
> >
> If I am understanding the situation correctly, the problem is that
> Pod::Checker does not issue an "unresolved internal link" warning when the
> target of an L<> formatting code does not exist in the document *if* the
> target is th
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ricardo Signes
wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [2012-01-27T18:15:17]
> > More precisely, podchecker coming with perl 5.10 gets it wrong, it
> > finds multiple defined labels because it takes only into account the
> > beginning of an =item, for example
>
> podchecker is i
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> It is nice that you are sharing your thoughts with us -
> but frankly speaking I do not see any concrete point.
> L<> and =head/=item may not be the perfect solution,
> but it is all that's been there for years, and changing
> this (b
On 12-01-29 10:29 AM, Marek Rouchal wrote:
and the same way you dislike X<> being an anchor
X<> has to be an anchor for the index, not that any POD parser creates
indexes.
--
Just my 0.0002 million dollars worth,
Shawn
Programming is as much about organization and communication
as i
t
you wrote, which might be more convincing.
-Marek
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: 'Patrice Dumas' [mailto:pertu...@free.fr]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Januar 2012 10:33
An: pod-people@perl.org
Betreff: Re: pod checker that finds missing internal links?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 09:26:
* Patrice Dumas [2012-01-27T18:15:17]
> More precisely, podchecker coming with perl 5.10 gets it wrong, it
> finds multiple defined labels because it takes only into account the
> beginning of an =item, for example
podchecker is in the process of being replaced with Pod::Simple-based code.
Hope
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 09:26:31AM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> So your issues are with pod2html, less with Pod::Checker.
> Which pod2html are you using? Likely the issues with
> hyperlinks should be fixed there.
My feeling is that it is pod2html which is right and Pod::Checker
should find a miss
-
Von: 'Patrice Dumas' [mailto:pertu...@free.fr]
Gesendet: Samstag, 28. Januar 2012 16:17
An: pod-people@perl.org
Betreff: Re: pod checker that finds missing internal links?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:38:48PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> podchecker _does_ detect wrong internal
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:38:48PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> podchecker _does_ detect wrong internal links. If you
> put any of the following links in the POD you quoted
> below, podchecker (as of Pod-Parser-1.38 and higher)
> will flag it as an error:
>
> L
> L<"open FILEHANDLE,MODE,EXPRES
2 00:15
An: pod-people@perl.org
Betreff: pod checker that finds missing internal links?
Hello,
I have searched for a pod checker that finds missing internal links, but I
haven't found one.
More precisely, podchecker coming with perl 5.10 gets it wrong, it finds
multiple defined labels because
Hello,
I have searched for a pod checker that finds missing internal links,
but I haven't found one.
More precisely, podchecker coming with perl 5.10 gets it wrong, it
finds multiple defined labels because it takes only into account the
beginning of an =item, for example
=item open FILEH
17 matches
Mail list logo
