Syntactic Confectionery Delight | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I've always found it very useful and handy to be able to refer to print in a normal sentence, whithout having to think about linking too consciously. Just like how people sometimes use "()", like in int() to indicate something is a function, it is handy on Perl monks to do so with "[]", like in [int], and have it link to the documentatin. The power of usability in these links is the lack of schema. (And the high threshold in using Perl Monks's schema links is made even higher by the mandatory "//" after the colon.) Even if just a stub page linking to the perldoc.perl.org, perldoc pages here would be a good idea. It's laudable that you don't want to break old links (though in that respect, changing titles of 2 year old nodes certainly doesn't help much), but I think there should also be a focus on the future. This focus should not just be pure, it should also dwim. (I'm referring to Perl versus other languages. I think it's dwimmy to say [perlop], and needlessly (unperlishly) verbose to say [doc://perlop].) Perldocs are very well defined, and only very few are added. When one is added, the stub can be introduced by any user. I volunteer for updating perlcheat to point to the actual up-to-date document on perldoc.perl.org; In fact, I'll do so right away. :) There are two things regarding perldocs on Perl Monks that "seemed like a good idea [at the time]", namely mirroring documents here, and having short intuitive dwimmy links. One of them still is. As for updating old nodes, you're kidding, right? In reply to Re^2: I want site documentation updates and I want them now.
by Juerd
|
|