Eryq wrote [seriously elided by jdp]: > > they would be even more informative if, instead of > using =head2 or =item to document our APIs, we had things > like this: > =method open FILENAME > =method > @type class,instance > > That's why I favor taking generally-useful things and providing > some standardized support for them. Embedding t-tests in > source sounds intriguing, and a standardized POD-based approach > seems like a clean solution. Yes. I'd point out that all these things could be done without requiring any changes to the pod definition. The Pod::Parser just needs to be sufficiently, generically empowered. -- John Porter We're building the house of the future together.
- Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC 79 Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC ... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and ... Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 ... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC ... Glenn Linderman
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with... Michael G Schwern
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... Eryq
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... Eryq
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 ... John Porter
- Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC ... Nathan Wiger
- Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC 79 Glenn Linderman