Jonathan Lang writes:
> The only other thing that I'll continue to lobby for is that the line
> starting with a block comment's termination tag should _not_ be
> considered part of the comment, save for the termination tag itself.
> Programmers are likely to be surprised when text that follows a
>
Larry Wall writes:
> I have a problem with both extremes, and I want to solve it with a
> dose of postmodern apathy. It may seem a bit insane, but I think that
> in
>
> print qq:to/END/
>
> =for whatever
>
> END
>
> I would prefer that the =for is considered Pod by any standard Po
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:45:21PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: The only other thing that I'll continue to lobby for is that the line
: starting with a block comment's termination tag should _not_ be
: considered part of the comment, save for the termination tag itself.
: Programmers are likely to
Larry Wall wrote:
I have a problem with both extremes, and I want to solve it with a dose
of postmodern apathy. It may seem a bit insane, but I think that in
print qq:to/END/
=for whatever
END
I would prefer that the =for is considered Pod by any standard Pod
parser, but is *not*
I have a problem with both extremes, and I want to solve it with a dose
of postmodern apathy. It may seem a bit insane, but I think that in
print qq:to/END/
=for whatever
END
I would prefer that the =for is considered Pod by any standard Pod
parser, but is *not* considered Pod by t
In "[svn:perl6-synopsis] r14421 - doc/trunk/design/syn",
Damian Conway wrote:
brian wrote:
> So, if this is the case, how will a new Perl 6 user debug a program
> failure when part of their program mysteriously disappears because
> they just happened to have =begin at the beginning of a line?
Th
