in reply to Re: Re: Inline POD vs. EOF POD
in thread Inline POD vs. EOF POD
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 documentation.
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?
-- Abigail
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Re: Inline POD vs. EOF POD
by jplindstrom (Monsignor) on Jul 11, 2001 at 11:53 UTC | |
by Abigail (Deacon) on Jul 11, 2001 at 14:07 UTC | |
by jplindstrom (Monsignor) on Jul 12, 2001 at 19:51 UTC |