develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from March 2005

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Aaron Sherman
March 16, 2005 11:33
Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]
Message ID:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 14:17, Brian Ingerson wrote:

> Kwid does this by formally changing
>    X<...>
> into
>    {X...X}

Ok, where is THAT proposal?! I'm reading the doc that's in
doc/perlkwid.kwid in the pugs source tree. Hmmm... odd, I just did an
update and it's GONE now... was I looking at some phantom doc that had
an old spec for Kwid?!

> Where `X` is any Pod code like `B`, `I` or `C`. Since there are only 3
> codes in common use (ignore `L` for a second), Kwid thus uses {*bold*}
> {/italic/} and {`code`}.

Well, I'm personally not fond of the bare-bracketting with {}, but as
long as it's not a stand-alone /italic/ like it was in the original doc,
that sounds fine. Why {/foo/} is more readable than I[foo], I'm not
sure... but I'll try to take your word for it.

> For L<...>, I decided to use the very common wiki idiom of [...] for a
> link. Everything in the `...` is the same as Pod.

There, I think you're making a small mistake, but not a huge one. I'd
separate out magical wiki-like [foo] from pedantic, pod-like L[foo] so
that you can get either one. Wiki's [foo] is like a URN, where POD's
L[foo] is more in tune with a relative URL.

> > While I appreciate several features of Kwid, I feel that it should not
> > replace POD without first adopting a POD-like simplicity.
> > 
> >         Some people have argued that Kwid is only a syntactic change to
> >         Pod. I would argue that they are correct.
> > 
> > They are demonstrably wrong. You cannot Parse Kwid correctly by changing
> > the syntax of a POD parser.

> The behaviour of this is completely consistent. You may need to reread the 
> perlkwid document for it has recently changed.


> ie
>     * foo
>     bar
>     * baz
>     boom
> matches
>     * foo bar
>     * baz boom
> matches
>     .list
>     * foo bar
>     * baz boom
>     .list.


How, then do you differentiate:

	* Bullet list.
	1. Numbered list.
		Term/definition lists

? In POD, that would be:

	=item *

	Bullet list

	=item 1

	Numbered list.

	=item Other

	Term/definition lists

> I would encourage those interested in further fleshing out Kwid to join
> irc:// where all of this is actively being
> discussed.

Sorry, no access to IRC at work. If the specification of core pieces of
P6 are being done off-list, why is there a list?

Aaron Sherman <>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback

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