develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

Re: Recent pod

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Mark Overmeer
February 25, 2013 22:58
Re: Recent pod
Message ID:
* David E. Wheeler ( [130225 22:38]:
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Mark Overmeer <> wrote:
> > Of course, there are many work-arounds.  That's not the point.  It's
> > the missing point, I think.
> perlpodspec:
> >        ·   An "=over" ... "=back" region containing only
> >            "m/\A=item\s+\d+\.?\s*\z/" paragraphs, each one (or each group
> >            of them) followed by some number of ordinary/verbatim
> >            paragraphs, other nested "=over" ... "=back" regions, "=for..."
> >            paragraphs, and/or "=begin"..."=end" codes.  Note that the
> >            numbers must start at 1 in each section, and must proceed in
> >            order and without skipping numbers.
> > 
> >            (Pod processors must tolerate lines like "=item 1" as if they
> >            were "=item 1.", with the period.)
> As a result, the type of the list is determined by this method:

In perlpod:
    ·   And perhaps most importantly, keep the items consistent:
        either use "=item *" for all of them, to produce bullets; or
        use "=item 1.", "=item 2.", etc., to produce numbered lists;
        or use "=item foo", "=item bar", etc.--namely, things that
        look nothing like bullets or numbers.

No idea whether perlpodspec changed or perlpod doesn't tell the whole
picture with respect to numbered lists.  The manual page always looked

Most releases of Perl introduce new warnings.  Maybe a good thing.  As
long as it is an on-purpose change.


       Mark Overmeer MSc                                MARKOV Solutions                         

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