develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2011

Re: Rethinking some perldocs (Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Tom Christiansen
Date:
March 4, 2011 05:58
Subject:
Re: Rethinking some perldocs (Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial)
Message ID:
6038.1299247127@chthon
Johan wrote:

>> I like the idea, but worry about what old-school people like me would
>> have to type when using "man" instead of "perldoc". What manual pages
>> would it generate?
>>
>>  $ man perlvar
>>  $ man perlrun

> I must admit that I didn't even know you could do that.

> Perl comes with perldoc, so why man, except for perl.1 ?

Sicut erat in principio...

> The current perl.1 already exclusively refers to the use of perldoc.

> A quick look reveals that there are 177 perl*1 documents in my
> man tree, 176 of them do not belong there.

"Not belong"?  Sure they do.   

> Not in man1, man7 maybe, 

Well, ok.  But I'd say section 5 in some cases.

Perl itself belongs in section 6, of course.

> but I doubt they should be in man at all, again, given that we
> have perldoc.

That isn't right.  Never put something in perldoc that isn't in man.
Don't make people run different tools to get at different subsets
of the system documentation.  That's abhorrent.

> IMHO, perlrun.1 would be a better candidate for perl.1; 

Yes, I see what you mean.

> all the other documents can be used with perldoc.

I must admit that I have never used this perldoc thing. 

Ever.  Truly.

If I can't do what I need to do with "man" and "man -k",
I just cd to the build directory and do fancier queries.

--tom

    ***RUN THIS***

	:g/^[^>].*\.$/s/$/ :)/

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About