Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2000
Brad Appleton writes: > Wolfgang Laun noted that even C<< ... >> will potentially break some > existing pods. He was think of a sequence he's seen some use to indicate > a return value of less-than-zero: C<< 0>. This is currently valid POD. > Adding C<< ... >> would mean it has to be rewritten as C<< < 0 >> (or > use the ugly E<lt>). Otherwise it will probably look like an unterminated > sequence. (we could always go back to Larry's earlier proposal of > C<: ... :> if folks want). How can C<::> be better than C<<>>? IlyaThread Previous | Thread Next