Mark Overmeer asked:
* Pod and Perl (or any other ambient source code) are to be syntactically
separated, even when there are semantic interconnections
Why? Who says that?
Me. :-)
* Perl 6 will be able to access ambient Pod via $=POD (and other
$=WHATEVER variables)
Cannot find anyth
brian d foy writes:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damian
> Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No. It's Pod. *Any* line that begins with '=begin' always starts a Pod
> > block. Always.
>
> As you know, one of the biggest complaints about Perl is that you have
> to have a lot of special
Mark Overmeer writes:
> * Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070615 00:17]:
>
> > * Pod 6 is both a structural and a semantic scheme; you can specify
> > both the structure of a document, and the meaning of its various
> > components
>
> Yes, and that is one of the things which worries me mo
* Smylers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 09:09]:
> > * Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070615 00:17]:
> > > * Pod 6 is both a structural and a semantic scheme; you can specify
> > > both the structure of a document, and the meaning of its various
> > > components
> >
> > Yes, and that is one o
> brian d foy writes:
>> I doubt other languages will want to deal with this situation.
* Smylers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 08:44]:
> With these new Pod rules it's possible to entirely remove Pod from a
> file without knowing _anything_ about the host language. (It could
> straightforwardly be
brian wrote:
> As you know, one of the biggest complaints about Perl is that you have
> to have a lot of special rules knowledge to figure some things out.
> Whether that is true doesn't really matter: people still complain about
> it.
>
> In this case, it will actually be true.
I don't think th
* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 08:29]:
> No. There *will* be conventions, which will be defined by the behaviour
> of the standard documentation tools that we create.
man-page Perl6 secion BUGS:
The "Damian Documentation Conventions" should have been mandatory.
[Careful: this is
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damian Conway
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ First, I should note that whatever we end up with, that's the party
line and that's what I teach, but before we end up there, I know from
my years of experience teaching that certain sorts of questions are
going to come up.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Smylers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> brian d foy writes:
>
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damian
> > Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > No. It's Pod. *Any* line that begins with '=begin' always starts a Pod
> > > block. Always.
> >
> > As you kn
Without replying to anyone in particular, I'll say ...
I agree with the camp that says an = at the start of a line is pod,
without exception, regardless of context.
I am also assuming that "start of the line" means there is no
whitespace to the left of the =.
I also recognize and agree with
For what it's worth, I'm a fan of the notation that NaturalDocs uses.
Function: Multiply
Multiplies two integers.
Parameters:
x - The first integer.
y - The second integer.
Returns:
The two integers multiplied together.
See Also:
http://www.naturaldocs.org/
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
brian d foy wrote:
> Whereas the rule you have to teach under the Integration model is:
We don't teach any rule under this model, and it's been fine for over a
decade :)
When we do teach the current Pod, the simple rule is that Pod starts:
* when Perl is expecting a new statement
* there
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:33:58PM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
> * Smylers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 09:09]:
> > > * Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070615 00:17]:
> > > > * Pod 6 is both a structural and a semantic scheme; you can specify
> > > > both the structure of a document, and the me
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Which is not to say that there isn't a time and place when ease of
implementation should trump ease of programming; taking an extreme
example, being able to write a program that consists of the single
line:
attend my every wish
is the ultimate in terms of ease of programm
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
>> Which is not to say that there isn't a time and place when ease of
>> implementation should trump ease of programming; taking an extreme
>> example, being able to write a program that consists of the single
>> line:
>>
>> attend my every wish
>>
>> i
Darren Duncan wrote:
Given this, there is an obvious (to me) solution for pod blocks in the
middle of expressions like:
my $foo
= $bar;
As the example shows, and I believe best practices espouse, you *indent*
the code line with a leading =.
I'd agree that indentation is good for reada
brian wrote:
>> The rule you have to teach under the Separation model is:
>>
>> "Any line that starts with an = is Pod...and not part of your
>> program."
>
> And that's something that now comes up very early in teaching the
> assignment operator.
You know, that's a benefit I hadn't ev
I'm not going to argue about the design of Pod 6 any more. As both Mark
and brian have pointed out, this really comes down to philosophical
differences that no amount of discussion is going to resolve. In any
case, I'm sure that Larry now has plenty of "grist" from which to mill a
final specificat
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
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:22:55PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: My problems with these tools would be reduced if the POD identification
: rule was changed from /^=/ to /^=\w/. I.e. whitespace after the initial
: "=" marks it as non-pod.
S26 says that ^^ '=' \s is for continuing a previous directiv
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*
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
