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
March 17, 2005 06:54
Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]
Message ID:
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17  8:30 (-0500):
> This is aesthetic preference. I could cite the reasons that I have an
> aesthetic preference for the other syntax, but the reality is that angle
> brackets aren't angle brackets; they are less-than (E<lt>) and greater-
> than signs (E<gt>). We ignore this fact at our peril, and the hacks in
> pod syntax (e.g. C<< < >>) to get around this are glaring anti-
> huffmanisms.

Other than awareness, this really doesn't have a point to it.

In ASCII, ' was meant as an apostrophe, but we use it as a quote.

Yen was never meant to have anything to do with zipping.

Guillemets originally had nothing to do with parallelization.

The hacks for square brackets are exactly the same. Think of how
C[@foo[0]] would be parsed without nesting. And if you say nesting fixes
all, then consider C["]"] as a counter-example. Are you willing to parse
code in a "simple" documentation format?

> > Pod needs incremental improvements--tables
> Oops, forgot that one. I'll add it tonight, when I get home from work.

See PodTables in the Pugs wiki.

> > Pod does *not* need to be ripped out and replaced with something
> > very different,
> yes, yes, yes!


> > especially something that involves adding "line noise" to documents
> > intended for human consumption.
> yes, yes, yes!

Agreed, though I like *bold*, /italic/, _underline_ and `code` very
much. I'd like an option to enable it.


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