Mark Glines wrote:
Think its worth adding a
codingstd test for POD coverage?
No.
Or perhaps: No, not unless you want to start a big "philosophical"
argument about POD coverage.
I say this as someone who dissents from the prevailing wisdom about POD
coverage as it relates to CPAN modules. That's because the tests on
CPAN that purport to rate the "kwalitee" of the POD coverage of CPAN
distributions will only credit you if you write your POD in one
particular style. If you happen to have written POD for one of your
distros before that standard was formulated, or if you happen to think
that style doesn't suit your distro well, then you don't get credit and
your "kwalitee" sinks.
There are distros for which I've written 40+ pages of documentation but
which fail these "kwalitee" tests because of the way I structured the
=head tags.
I happen to think that some of our coding standards amount to excessive
nitpicking ... and when Perl::Critic is applied to some of the code I
maintain, the results, IMHO, are demonstrably less readable code. And
that's for stuff we write in relatively well structured languages like
Perl 5 and PIR. We write POD in English; need I say more?
Finally, to add a test for POD coverage is just one more test which will
fail often in 'make test' or 'make smoke' and yet say nothing about the
quality of Parrot.
In, short: No.
kid51
