Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2008
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 08:44:15PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > David Nicol wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Would anyone be opposed to their docs being moved to perlop? > >> > > > > I think its a good thing that they're listed in perlfunc. There are a > > lot of other things in perlfunc besides "functions" as such, for > > instance the discussion of "next," "last," and "redo" which aren't > > functions either, they're flow control syntax. > > > > I think its good that there is one thing to remember to get the > > documentation about a specific feature, perldoc -f ... > > > > and if the specific features were all broken out into their own > > sections, so you had to try several things, or follow "see instead: > > ..." links, that would be a hassle. > > That's an argument in favor of moving everything into perlfunc (or a perlfunc > format), not for just the filetest operators. If we're going to do it, do it > for everything. > > Doing it piecemeal is confusing. If I had to puzzle out the current split > between perlfunc and perlop it's that all the "wordy" stuff is in perlfunc and > all the not wordy stuff is in perlop. [1] If I want to look for -M I'm going > to look in perlop. Having it in perlop is a surprise. > > The layout of perlfunc is superior to perlop, it's a lot easier to search for > things. They're in alphabetical order instead of precedence order (?!) and > each item has it's own clear heading (facilitating perldoc -f). Maybe perlop > should be reduced to discussing precedence and the docs for each particular op > moved to perlfunc or a perlfunc format. I like the fact that the file operators are in perlfunc so they can be found by 'perldoc -f'. And yes, that could be an argument to move perlop into perlfunc. But it may be better to adopt the syntax of perlop so that with a few changes, 'perldoc -f' not only searches perlfunc, but also perlop. Abigail