Mark Overmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oops, someone starts the holy war (again). Wether you put the docs
> in begin or end of the file, or intermixed with the code has a lot
> to do with your personal background.
Sorry for the late reply, but I can't let this stand without further
elaborat
David Green wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me fli
* Juerd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040823 19:46]:
> David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
> > One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
> > of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
> > least I can't recall that last time I saw a module
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>>the docs in the same file as
>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
>reason
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
> I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
> about proposing something like:
>
> sub foo (
> Foo::Bar$bar,
> Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
> +$verbose,
> +$foo
> ) des
On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote:
>What if we add C attribute that the execution compiler would
>discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I
>believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate
>policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
> unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, an
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.") (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ("")
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that ma
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ev
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
> One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
> of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
> least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
> don't think I've ever reall
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
>common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
>wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
13 matches
Mail list logo
