Re: Using PPI to document existing modules

[hsmyers]

Yes! Do continue to develop this. ANY contribution to documentation either for yourself or others is certainly a step in the right direction. While I see that your output is POD, you might want to think about other possibilities in addition. At the moment, I am re-writing one of my CPAN modules in Lisp. The dialect I'm using (newLISP) uses a comment embedded mini-language to produce a nicely formatted html page. You might try the same. If you do then I would point out that perltidy can output formatted and colored html text given functions as input; and of course this could be folded back into the documentation. All of this could be kept within the source file; something that could prevent the drift between source and documentation. Enough babble. Go for it. --hsm

[AK108]

The main improvement that I want to develop is the use of PPI to automatically add POD inline with the Perl code. I'm only interested in Perl right now, since that's what I'm using. If there are other modules out there in Perl to parse Language X, then that could be worth adding. I'm not trying to replace Pod::HTML or create a non-POD format for Perl.

I have some free time coming up in a month or so, and I'm interested in making this into something that can add all the sections that documentation needs (name, synopsis, description, methods, see also, bugs, author).

[hsmyers]

I mentioned the Lisp part as an example of what you could do in Perl. Nothing was said about you targeting other languages with this or any other code. Sorry to have made the suggestion.