On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Arthur Bergman wrote: > > Last week I tried to get response from this modules list, but there > > was none. I know you are all very busy, but I can't wait too much > > longer. Therefore, I now ask for the name space officially. > > I am not so sure I like the namespace, it feels kind of vague, can't it > fit under a descriptive existing top level namespace? > (OTOH I am not sure why I think it's vague)
I think Pod::OO or Pod::OODoc is less vague and more helpful for what
this module does. As MARKOV states:
POD is a visual markup language, and therefore information is lost
about what is being documented. My syntax adds keywords like "=method",
"=function", and "=overload" to what POD has. It helps a lot with
doumenting named parameters.
and it seems to me that this implies that OODoc is an extension that
inherits the POD syntax, instead of something entirely different.
I note that MARKOV has these comments on the Pod::OO namespace:
* POD::OO, but it is not really POD although it has some simularities.
So: it is not an Object Oriented POD at all.
But as it conforms to the POD specification's syntax, one can argue that
it is still POD, only enhanced. From L<perlpodspec>:
Pod content is contained in Pod blocks. A Pod block starts with
a line that matches <m/\A=[a-zA-Z]/>, and continues up to the
next line that matches "m/\A=cut/" -- or up to the end of the
file, if there is no "m/\A=cut/" line.
...
A Pod parser may allow a way for particular applications to add
to the above list of known commands, and to stipulate, for each
additional command, whether formatting codes should be processed.
Personally, the name 'Pod::OO' sounds much more encouraging for other
module authors to try on (since it implies that it is compatible with
the POD syntax).
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
