Larry Wall wrote:
> : So, are you saying that if this RFC is implemented, POD would be
> : an good way to comment code?
>
> It already is, as far as I'm concerned.
I do too. RFC 79 presumes that POD continues in its state of grace.
> Seems like all we're discussing now is how much those independent
> documents should be independent (where the code itself is considered
> one of the documents).
Indeed. Sounds like we need some things:
a) a "perl" processor type for =for/=begin; and
b) ability to combine pod processors on =for/=begin, so that the stuff
goes to all the named pod processors.
c) a "pod" processor type, for which the stuff is not "diverted";
E.g.:
=for pod perl
# this line goes to both the default pod processor AND the perl parser.
Alternatively, the processor type named on the =for/=begin line could
actually be a pattern, and the stuff is passed to all matching pod
processors:
=for (pod|perl)
# this line goes to both the default pod processor AND the perl parser.
=for .*
# this line goes to all processors, including the perl parser.
While I'm on it -- perhaps the RFC should be phrased in terms of LP,
as in: "Perl On-line Documentation (:-) should more fully support LP".
--
John Porter
