On 02/09/2012 04:34 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
I doubt you'll ever see a distribution which has POD in both Foo/Bar.pm
and Foo/Bar.pod, because the perldoc tool will only see one or the other
when a user types 'perldoc Foo::Bar'.
+1 !
...by which I mean that I took this as a given: when Perl
I doubt you'll ever see a distribution which has POD in both Foo/Bar.pm
and Foo/Bar.pod, because the perldoc tool will only see one or the other
when a user types 'perldoc Foo::Bar'.
Thank you David, this is very useful. My conclusion is that it is not
explicitly forbidden, but it is not
Dear all,
I had a look at the perlsyn, perldoc and perldocspec documents but
cannot seem to find the answer to the following questions.
The POD content of a module can be written into its Perl file or into a
separate .pod file. There are quite a few examples of modules around
that use one
case?
I doubt you'll ever see a distribution which has POD in both Foo/Bar.pm
and Foo/Bar.pod, because the perldoc tool will only see one or the other
when a user types 'perldoc Foo::Bar'.
Having POD in both .pm and .pod files in a distribution is fairly common,
but in that case the .pm file's POD
At 12:45 2002-01-16 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
In the new mod_perl documentation we have many .pod files and they are
deeply nested. For example:
../docs/2.0/devel/testing/testing.pod
../docs/2.0/devel/benchmarks/benchmarks.pod
../docs/2.0/user/coding/coding.pod
../docs/2.0/user/compat
In the new mod_perl documentation we have many .pod files and they are
deeply nested. For example:
../docs/2.0/devel/testing/testing.pod
../docs/2.0/devel/benchmarks/benchmarks.pod
../docs/2.0/user/coding/coding.pod
../docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.pod
../docs/2.0/user/design/design.pod
../docs
