develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2000

Re: proposed perlpod.pod patch

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Brad Appleton
February 4, 2000 14:02
Re: proposed perlpod.pod patch
Message ID:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 04:58:34PM -0500, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> 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<<>>?

I certainly like the looks of C<<>> more than C<::>, but the latter can
seem "better" in that C<< 0> is no longer ambiguous or an issue as it
is with C<< ... >>. Is there something similar that may commonly occur
like C<: 0> or C<: xxx>???

I now have a working prototype for C<<>> which would be trivial to
change to use C<::> instead.
Brad Appleton <>
  "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About