There are modules that are intended for users that are developers,
and these may need very detailed technical documentation, or even
documentation about the implementation of certain features.
I doubt that very much. Except for use in a classroom, modules are
written to be used. Even if the users are developers. Not to be picked
apart and their implementation studied. gdb wasn't written
so people could study its implementation, was it? Sure, some people
using a module will maintain it. But it's only for hardly used modules
were maintainers are a significant number.
In general, I think POD syntax is the problem here, not the idea
of "inline" vs. "EOF" documentation. If POD syntax would waste less
screenspace, everybody would use "inline" POD for implementation-level
Well, that's quite opposite of one of my reason not to use inline POD.
Changing the syntax of POD to use less screenspace doesn't solve the
problem of having the documentation in the same order as the subroutines.
What makes you think noone will bother about order of documentation as soon
as POD stops wasting screenspace?