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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Abigail
Date:
March 4, 2011 09:56
Subject:
Re: Rethinking some perldocs (Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a newOO tutorial)
Message ID:
20110304175600.GG28401@almanda
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:47:30PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:11:28 -0500, Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > > Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > >> I must admit that I have never used this perldoc thing.
> > >>
> > >> Ever.  Truly. 
> > > I think you're in a minority there - very few people look for the 
> > > documentation for perl functions by loading "man perlfunc" and 
> > > searching through, most do "perldoc -f <function>". And when helping 
> > > people out on IRC or mailing lists I never load up each perlfaq file 
> > > and grep through - perldoc -q is MUCH more efficient.
> > >
> > > I'm actually surprised you've never used either of those features.
> > >
> > > It's also very useful (vital even) on Windows (except Cygwin) where 
> > > there is no "man".
> > I should clarify: I'm not suggesting removing the option of using "man" 
> > where it's available. I've been on systems where the time wait for 
> > perldoc to parse the pod is significant enough that man is much faster.
> 
> Even though I know perldoc, I still read the manual pages with man. I
> *do* use perldoc, but seldomly to read the pod. I use the -l and -m
> option to perldoc a lot. Code speaks quicte often loader than words.


I didn't know about the -m and -l options, and I'd automatically typed
"man perldoc" to find out what they mean. ;-)


Abigail

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