Damian Conway wrote:
[No, I'm not back; I'm just passing by. But I feel that I need to
comment on this whole issue]
Thanks! This message has lots of useful information that I would have
otherwise probably missed.
It seems that the basic premise of the POD document object model gels
well with t
Oh, and I forgot to mention:
In the contents of any block, any line with '=' in column zero and a
whitespace character in column 1, has those two characters removed when the
contents are extracted. So you can write:
=begin data POSSIBLE_POD_DIRECTIVES
=
= =doh -- Oh, dear! Oh frikking dear!
= =r
[No, I'm not back; I'm just passing by. But I feel that I need to comment on
this whole issue]
Even before Brian announced Kwid, I was privately suggesting to Larry that
Markdown (http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/) was an excellent
evolution of mark-up notations and might be well sui
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:04:53PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:28, Brian Ingerson wrote:
>
> > The interesting thing to me is that all 3 syntaxes map over the same
> > data model and thus are easily interchangable.
>
> It is, however, contrary to the spirit of POD for
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:16:00 -0700, gcomnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>By the way, I think I've seen a few people suggest some sort of
>syntax-switching mechanism for "Pod6". The day people have to think
>about what dialect of Pod they're usin
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Sam "mugwump" Vilain refers to each of these syntaxes as /Pod dialects/.
He is working on more formally defining the common model or "AST" that
these dialects map to.
Why? Seriously, why on earth do you want to encourage the proliferation
of variant markup languages?! There are
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 17:07, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and the hacks in
> > pod syntax (e.g. C<< < >>) to get around this are glaring anti-
> > huffmanisms.
>
> Whatever bracketing character we decide to use, there will always be
> occasions wh
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Specifically, I like the use of angle brackets in Pod. Angle brackets
> > are simple, distinctive shapes; they remain wide in variable-width
>
> This is aesthetic preference. I could cite the reasons that I have an
> aesthetic preference for the other
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:28, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> The interesting thing to me is that all 3 syntaxes map over the same
> data model and thus are easily interchangable. The other interesting
> thing is that all three could be supported without affecting the Perl5
> or Perl6 syntax proper.
If an
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:39, Juerd wrote:
> Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 16:30 (-0500):
> > > See PodTables in the Pugs wiki.
> > Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously.
>
> Since when is anything in Perl 6, except its name, set in stone?
>
> PodTables is a more
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 16:30 (-0500):
> > See PodTables in the Pugs wiki.
> Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously.
Since when is anything in Perl 6, except its name, set in stone?
PodTables is a more detailed and more consistent approach to a
suggestion I
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 09:54, Juerd wrote:
> > > Pod needs incremental improvements--tables
> > Oops, forgot that one. I'll add it tonight, when I get home from work.
>
> See PodTables in the Pugs wiki.
Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously.
YMMV. I'll have the sec
On 17/03/05 00:49 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 13:42 -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
>
> Well, look over AJS Kwid, and see what you think. The bullet syntax you
> give could work fine as a replacement for what I demonstrate, but I
> think everything else is pretty much 1:1. Now
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 8:30 (-0500):
> This is aesthetic preference. I could cite the reasons that I have an
> aesthetic preference for the other syntax, but the reality is that angle
> brackets aren't angle brackets; they are less-than (E) and greater-
> than signs (E). We ignore this f
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 15:09 -0800, David Storrs wrote:
> C[$x[0] > $y] # hmmm...parser ok with that?
> C[$x[0] > $] # hmmm...error, but what was intended: $y] or $]]?
In the former case, it's fine. See the grammar I sent last night.
In the latter case, you would get balanced-[] matching, an
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 02:17 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aside from links, that's pretty much the entire perlpodtut boiled down
> > into 7 bullets; a little experimentation to get the hang of it and it
> > all holds together nicely, easy to re
David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from links, that's pretty much the entire perlpodtut boiled down
> into 7 bullets; a little experimentation to get the hang of it and it
> all holds together nicely, easy to remember.
Yes, yes, yes.
Pod is one of the things Perl 5 did almost exactly
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 13:42 -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
First off, thanks for your kind responses. I'm sure I just got confused
by some web page I was looking at, and overwrote part of my stack that
I'd just populated from the Kwid doc. And thanks also for pointing me to
the Kwid docs where they
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:30:04PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 12:25, David Storrs wrote:
>
> > I quite like <> as the bracketing characters. They are
> > visually distinctive, they connect well with their adjacent C/X/L/etc
> > without visually merging into it (compare L
On 16/03/05 14:56 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 14:24, Brian Ingerson wrote:
>
> > vs Kwid:
> >
> > `$x > $y` is about as *easy* as it gets in [Perl]
> >
> > Did you really read `perlkwid.kwid`?
>
> Yes, and can you please stop asking that question? I read it seve
On 16/03/05 14:33 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 14:17, Brian Ingerson wrote:
>
> > Kwid does this by formally changing
> >
> >X<...>
> >
> > into
> >
> >{X...X}
>
> Ok, where is THAT proposal?! I'm reading the doc that's in
> doc/perlkwid.kwid in the pugs source
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 14:24, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> vs Kwid:
>
> `$x > $y` is about as *easy* as it gets in [Perl]
>
> Did you really read `perlkwid.kwid`?
Yes, and can you please stop asking that question? I read it several
times, and you're starting to get just this side of insultin
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 14:17, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> Kwid does this by formally changing
>
>X<...>
>
> into
>
>{X...X}
Ok, where is THAT proposal?! I'm reading the doc that's in
doc/perlkwid.kwid in the pugs source tree. Hmmm... odd, I just did an
update and it's GONE now... was I loo
On 16/03/05 13:30 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 12:25, David Storrs wrote:
>
> > I quite like <> as the bracketing characters. They are
> > visually distinctive, they connect well with their adjacent C/X/L/etc
> > without visually merging into it (compare L with L[foo]), and
On 16/03/05 12:00 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 13:48, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Upon reading this, it is unclear to me whether you have read about the
> > Kwid format or you are simply guessing that Kwid is the same syntax
> > used by Kwiki.
>
> I read the Kw
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 12:25, David Storrs wrote:
> I quite like <> as the bracketing characters. They are
> visually distinctive, they connect well with their adjacent C/X/L/etc
> without visually merging into it (compare L with L[foo]), and in
> the circumstance that you want to bracket an unbal
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:00:28PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> The one obvious thing to POD users is the replacement of <> with [] or
> {}. Why is this? Because < and > are used in un-balanced ways in a large
> number of situations, so they should not be the primary bracketing
> constructs.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 13:48, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Upon reading this, it is unclear to me whether you have read about the
> Kwid format or you are simply guessing that Kwid is the same syntax
> used by Kwiki.
I read the Kwid documentation from the Pugs distribution in depth.
Aaron,
Upon reading this, it is unclear to me whether you have read about the
Kwid format or you are simply guessing that Kwid is the same syntax
used by Kwiki.
It is not the same format at all. Kwid is merely /inspired/ by Kwiki,
which in turn is inspired by the (more usenix) features of modern
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-15 11:46 (-0500):
> = heading level 1
> == heading level 2
> =begin list
I see this going wrong with =heading level 1 already. I like the numbers
in =headN too, by the way, as it makes inconsistencies easier to spot.
> And then replaced [...] and [=
Wherein I propose (to the wrong list, sigh) a re-envisioning of Kwid in
a more POD-like form.
I did leave out some POD markup forms. Assume that, if I did not mention
them, then I think they should keep the same prefix character (e.g. X<>)
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 09:37, Stevan
31 matches
Mail list logo
