On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Or if the leading = really must be required:
> >
> > =*> level1
> > =>> level2
> > =+>>> level3
> > =* level4
> > =>>> l
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> I wonder if it'd be feasible to do lists something like:
>
> [...]
>
> =*> level1
> =>> level2
> =+>>> level3
> =* level4
> =>>> level3
> => level1
>
I personally like the idea of keeping
[examples of how to create the glossary links snipped]
Assuming that we do go with the "maintain a unique list of keys in %glossary, then do
an s///" approach, I'd be willing to maintain the list of terms.
--Dks
Andrew Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > > Or if the leading = really must be required:
> > >
> > > =*> level1
> > > =>> level2
> > > =+>>> level3
> > >
Garrett Goebel:
# Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > Garrett Goebel:
# > # =*> level1
# > # =>> level2
# > # =+>>> level3
# > # =* level4
# > # =>>> level3
# > # => level1
# >
# > Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
# > multi-level bu
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Or if the leading = really must be required:
> >
> > =*> level1
> > =>> level2
> > =+>>> level3
> > =* level4
> > =>>> l
Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Garrett Goebel:
> # =*> level1
> # =>> level2
> # =+>>> level3
> # =* level4
> # =>>> level3
> # => level1
>
> Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
> multi-level bulleting and stuff, we might as well make
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Or if the leading = really must be required:
>
> =*> level1
> =>> level2
> =+>>> level3
> =* level4
> =>>> level3
> => level1
What about this for bulletted lists:
=item * level1
=item ** lev
Garrett Goebel:
# =*> level1
# =>> level2
# =+>>> level3
# =* level4
# =>>> level3
# => level1
Too much punctuation, IMHO. If it ever does become necessary to do
multi-level bulleting and stuff, we might as well make it explicit with
=over/=back.
--Brent D
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more
> : descriptive, perhaps partly based on what we learn here, but
> : that'll be in the distant future.)
>
> You are certainly authorized to experiment wit
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more descriptive, perhaps
: partly based on what we learn here, but that'll be in the distant
: future.)
You are certainly authorized to experiment with POD variants in the
near futur
Michael Lazzaro:
# Do we have anything to mitigate the list-construction issues
# yet, or is
# that part still problematic?
Perhaps we can add an =bullet command that's the equivalent of:
=over 4
=item *
(one paragraph)
=back
Unless you're num
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 11:22 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
=section 1.1.2.1 Numeric Context
Numeric Context is a context full of cheesy goodness. For example, the
following code will put C<$obj> in C context:
my int $i = $obj;
blah blah blah...
=seealso Context
=seealso Numeric Valu
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
>> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
>> in order for the docs to be databa
"Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Allison Randal wrote:
>
>>Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>>
>>>Patch to where? p/l/perl6? I don't think they should go in its /t;
>>>maybe a new directory, /fulltests?
>>>
>>
>>We have standards for a reason. Stick with /t.
>>
>>Allison
>>
> Well, my point w
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 05:08 AM, Angel Faus wrote:
# >> I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
# > I agree with you. XML is very unpleasant to write.
#
# I certainly agree with that, but I was thinking of something
# very basic
# -- just
Luke Palmer wrote:
I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind of
"extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content, little
structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be unproductive,
and although the structure is useful, much of it is redundant and ca
Michael Lazzaro:
# OK, let's start on the first section (calling them
# "Sections", not "Chapters"). As our first experiment, we
# will assume a treelike style (section 1 --> 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1,
# etc.); look at http://www.mysql.com/documentation/ for an
# example of a good, detailed documentatio
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> ... I was thinking of something very basic -- just enough to get
> it into a database, for example. You'd just copy a standard
> template and fill in the fields. Like perhaps:
>
>
> 1.1.2.1
> Numeric Context
>
> Numeric Con
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:36 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
# simple substitution
my $var = "perl5";
$var =~ s/\d/6/;
While this is completely valid perl6, and something that might want to
be included in the regex test suite, it won't pass neither the P6C
parser
tests, nor the P6C compile
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Revision on reading Mike's message: If the constant stream of revisions
happens on cognitivity, how about submitting approved docs to the
"perl6" repository?
I would tend to agree, using the CVS repository to do nickle-and-dime
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 05:08 AM, Angel Faus wrote:
I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
I agree with you. XML is very unpleasant to write.
I certainly agree with that, but I was thinking of something very basic
-- just enough to get it into a database,
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Well, my point was that language tests will be different than the
> compiler/parser tests for awhile. For instance, take a simple string
> substitution test:
>
> # simple substitution
> my $var = "perl5";
> $var =~ s/\d/6/;
>
> While this is completely valid perl6, and so
>
> I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
> of "extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content,
> little structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be
> unproductive, and although the structure is useful, much of it is
> redundant and can be bypa
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
> in order for the docs to be databased & later sliced in a variety of
> ways (begi
Allison Randal wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Patch to where? p/l/perl6? I don't think they should go in its /t;
maybe a new directory, /fulltests?
We have standards for a reason. Stick with /t.
Allison
Well, my point was that language tests will be different than the
compiler/parser
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>
> Patch to where? p/l/perl6? I don't think they should go in its /t;
> maybe a new directory, /fulltests?
We have standards for a reason. Stick with /t.
Allison
I wrote:
>
> The "perl6" repository on cvs.perl.org already has a "doc" directory, I
> expect you'll just want to use that.
Revision on reading Mike's message: If the constant stream of revisions
happens on cognitivity, how about submitting approved docs to the
"perl6" repository?
Allison
Allison Randal wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
On another note, is there place (CVS) that can be set up that this stuff can
uploaded this stuff to? :)
The "perl6" repository on cvs.perl.org already has a "doc" directory, I
expect you'll just want to use that. The "design" subdir is reserved
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>
> On another note, is there place (CVS) that can be set up that this stuff can
> uploaded this stuff to? :)
The "perl6" repository on cvs.perl.org already has a "doc" directory, I
expect you'll just want to use that. The "design" subdir is reserved for
Apocalypses, Exegese
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
n another note, is there place (CVS) that can be set up
that this stuff can uploaded this stuff to? :)
Not yet. We'll almost certainly just tack our stuff onto the current
Parrot/Perl6 CVS tree, since that's the obvious place for it.
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> I really like the current perldoc.com appearance.
> Couldn't we just use that? (for now, at least)
Sure, but it's possible we want the data sliced several different
ways... so we have to figure out what those ways might be. For example,
if we want a treelike structure wi
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, let's start on the first section (calling them "Sections", not
"Chapters"). As our first experiment, we will assume a treelike style
(section 1 --> 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, etc.); look at
http://www.mysql.com/documentation/ for an example of a good, detailed
documentation tree
TASK 1c:
Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
in order for the docs to be databased & later sliced in a variety of
ways (beginner manual, advanced specs, test cases, etc.) Input and/or
output requirements are, at minimum:
-- as XML
-- as HTML
Note that POD consists of formatting directives, not schema information,
and so cannot represent the information in a form sufficient for full
slicing. At this point it would therefore appear that XML is the most
obvious authoring option.
A quicky (hopefully without starting a war), can anyon
35 matches
Mail list logo
