Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Michael Mathews
Larry Wall said: > John Porter writes: > : 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. Please, if I'm missing something specific please explain it to me. But here's what I can tell from the documentati

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Chaim Frenkel
Doesn't that put the formating for a target within the document. Shouldn't that be external to the actual markup? How about backing up a bit, and adding a style sheet to POD? Then only markup will be in pod, then making things disappear would be the job of the stylesheet. > "LW" == Larry W

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
Uri Guttman wrote: > > "JP" == John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > JP> Maybe what's needed is two distinct perl pod processor types, one > JP> which passes on the text literally to the compiler, and one which > JP> wraps it up like a string literal. > > JP> print > >

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Uri Guttman
> "JP" == John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JP> Maybe what's needed is two distinct perl pod processor types, one JP> which passes on the text literally to the compiler, and one which JP> wraps it up like a string literal. JP> print JP> =for perl-string pod JP> Help

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
Uri Guttman wrote: > > but how will perl access that text? what perl var get the text in that > =for block? Well, the proposal was more about getting perl code into doco than getting doco into perl. > the proposal for a special here doc notation is possible but > that can be hard for pod to p

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Uri Guttman
> "JP" == John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JP> =for pod perl JP> # this line goes to both the default pod processor AND the perl parser. but how will perl access that text? what perl var get the text in that =for block? the proposal for a special here doc notation is possible

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
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 indep

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
Andy Dougherty wrote: > > This is another instance where a macro preprocessor might be useful. > ... > Just hoping that looking at it from another skewed viewpoint may inspire > someone, Fine; but I hope people only see RFC 79 as an extension to POD, because that's all it really is. It does not

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
Michael Mathews wrote: > > I do consider this a potential alternative to the MLC RFC ... I don't. This RFC deals strictly with POD. If a good in-line comment solution is also implemented, so much the better; but orthogonal to this. > but to my mind it > addresses the opposite problem: how to

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote: > To be fair, neither of these are examples of using a comment function for > "comments" though, but rather using a comment function to disable sections > of code and I suppose that makes as much sense as using POD to disable code. This is another insta

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Michael Mathews
John Porter asked: > Michael Mathews wrote: > > This ... underlines why POD is not a good way to comment code. ... > > This RFC would seem to address the issue quite neatly. > So, are you saying that if this RFC is implemented, POD would be > a good way to comment code? I do consider this a poten

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Larry Wall
John Porter writes: : Michael Mathews wrote: : > : > This ... underlines why POD is not a good way to comment code. : > ... : > This RFC would seem to address the issue quite neatly. : : So, are you saying that if this RFC is implemented, POD would be : an good way to comment code? It already i

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread John Porter
Michael Mathews wrote: > > This ... underlines why POD is not a good way to comment code. > ... > This RFC would seem to address the issue quite neatly. So, are you saying that if this RFC is implemented, POD would be an good way to comment code? -- John Porter

Re: RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Michael Mathews
From: "Perl6 RFC Librarian" > This allows actual running code to be inserted directly into the documentation > for that code. This (if I understand your aim here) points out The Difference between comments and POD, and underlines why POD is not a good way to comment code. Comments can always be

RFC 79 (v1) Code which is both executable and POD.

2000-08-09 Thread Perl6 RFC Librarian
This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Code which is both executable and POD. =head1 VERSION Maintainer: John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 9 Aug 2000 Version: 1 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 79 =head1 ABSTRACT Allow som