On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:15:00AM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Technically, this is true. But is this POD? Would you call this C:
> 
>    int foo(int bar) {
>      _asm("...");
>      _asm("...");
>      _asm("...");
>      _asm("...");
>    }

Why, of course yes.  There are plenty of perl programs nowadays
containing nothimg more than a couple declarations and Inline::C blocks,
and they are still perl.

> The 'danger zone' for Mark's idea is to use POD-like stuctures, which
> may people trick into thinking they're dealing with POD while in fact
> they're not. If running OODF through a POD processor produces anything
> useful, people will think it _is_ POD.

Correct.  If that is the design goal, then I still think Pod::OO is the
better name for it.

> Along the same lines, the embedded directives like B<>, I<> are wrong
> (or at least dangerous) and should be replaced with more descriptive
> directives. 

Depends on Mark's objective.  Again, if he allows these PODesque
mark-ups (especially L<>) in OODoc, many people will apply the "if it
looks like POD, and it smells like POD..." argument.

> If I were Mark, I would leave POD completely and go for something new.
> 
>   @FILE Java Call In Implementation |
>   @IN_MODULE FF
>   @LOCAL
>   @FUNC |
>   @COPYRIGHT
>   @OWNER
>   @HISTORY
>   @PR   0  | 981001 | e03371 | 7.2.04  | wwo | Initial version taken from the 
> prototype
>   @COMMENTS
>   @XREF

If Mark goes with this route, then OODF or OODOC or MarkDoc are equally
applicable, since it's something that has no relation with Pod, and
(to borrow Mark's C => C++ metaphor) warrants a completely different
name like "Java" did.  So the question is... What does Mark wishes to
achieve: syntactical compatibility, or radical departure?

Thanks,
/Autrijus/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to