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

Re: PATCH to perlunicode.pod

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Jesse Vincent
April 14, 2011 21:52
Re: PATCH to perlunicode.pod
Message ID:

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 05:31:09PM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 01:07 PM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >Karl Williamson<>  wrote
> >    on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:44:39 MDT:
> >
> >>I've now pushed to blead, at Jesses's suggestion, all the pod changes.
> >>These include things in perlre that address this confusion.
> >
> >I started out noticing that perlunicode was talking about warnings
> >categories in all caps when it shouldn't.
> >
> >       1296  Perl will warn (using the warning category SURROGATE which is a
> >       1297  sub-category of UTF8) if an attempt is made
> >       1345  (using the warning category NONCHAR which is a sub-category of UTF8) if
> >       1354  NON_UNICODE which is a sub-category of UTF8) if an attempt is made to
> >
> >I had just planned to generate a patch for those, but then when I got
> >in there, I ended up doing a light proofread.  The patch below looks
> >bigger than it is.
> Thanks for your patch.  I used all CAPS because I was mimicking some
> other pod.  Wonder which one(s)...
> I agree with most of your edits, but don't know how many can be
> applied to 5.14, as it is frozen.  I got in a little bit of trouble
> for making light edits to pods that I was checking through to make
> sure 5.14 was adequately covered, and found things that I thought
> should be fixed that weren't directly related to 5.14 issues.  As a
> result I have a bunch of changes that I haven't submitted (including
> one especially that I'm steamed at how long we have lied to people
> about, because I was a victim many years ago of believing it, and
> didn't realize until recently that the docs are wrong--people
> shouldn't have to join p5p and get familiar with the code to find
> out these things).
> Jesse agrees though that the 5.14 code changes should be documented,
> so your edits to those should be acceptable; and I believe that
> regressions in the new docs should also be acceptable.  I know
> immediately if some changes fit these categories or not, but others
> I don't.

For serious errors in docs like the one you mention being steamed at,
I am succeptible to being lobbied.[1]  Given my on-and-off connectivity
and antipodean working hours this week, Karl, please apply (or bless for
application by others) those doc patches which you think ought to get in for
the 5.14.0 release. I'm unlikely to put up much of a fight.


[1] Yep, I'm bending my rules.  Lots of patching and hard work to get
Perl 5.14 in shape doesn't get you many real-world benefits, but it 
is good for something... Me letting you work harder to get 5.14 in
shape.  Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut.

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