* Johan Vromans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030328 11:15]:
> The =begin, =end and =for directives as recognized by POD parsers[1]
> are designed to add specific extensions to POD. However, when you only
> use the extensions then POD reduces to the bare mechanism to embed
> non-perl information in perl programs.
Agree.
> 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.
> If I were Mark, I would leave POD completely and go for something new.
> =begin oudf
>
> @FILE Java Call In Implementation |
> This file contains functions of Configuration Manager BeanInfo.
I think were are getting into a syntax debate for one of the
documentation parsers which is implemented for OODoc. Debates
about syntax are about as subjective as those about coding styles.
The reason why my first doc syntax looks like POD, is to simplify
conversion from existing doc into the new module: very little effort
is needed...
I don't think that the name of the module should depend on the syntax
of one of the parsers.
To come back to remarks so far: the name POD::OO is not honest to what
the module does, but might be easier to "sell" to new users. I have no
objections to a different name than OODoc, as long as it contains the
real power of the module.
Johan propossed OODF (Object Oriented Document Format), which only
covers the parser part OODoc::Parser::OODF
Other suggestions?
--
MarkOv %-]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
drs Mark A.C.J. Overmeer MARKOV Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://Mark.Overmeer.net http://solutions.overmeer.net
