[Doc-SIG] Re: POD (resend)
Juergen Hermann" <email@example.com
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:14:02 +0100
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:35:46 -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
>I don't mind at all if a doc presentation system wants to be clever abo=
>what I wrote, just so long as I don't have to think about it.
I do mind that. I don't mind if the system _IS_ clever about it . ;)
>names and italics for method names -- today, much of the time". I expe=
>rather see no markup at all than that inconsistent gibberish -- Ping ca=
>figure out what they meant better than they can! Class, method and fun=
>names are indeed easily obtained via parsing the module.
And can be very misleading in some cases (I have functions named "text",=
example, which could make this text :) quite confusing after formatting)=
prefer to mark up code with C<> (or whatever explicit markup) and then h=
doc system only be clever about what's inside C<> (like em for function =
bold for operators, etc.).
I DO see the problem with using physical markup like I<> for identifiers=
everyone would do it differently.