in reply to Re^2: RFC: Data::Dumper::Simple
in thread RFC: Data::Dumper::Simple

I think that the requirement for plings (!) at either end of each comment embedded directive make the parsing fairly unambiguous. The fact that it allows for 2 or more ##s to preceed the directive pleases me as I tend to use 2 most of the time. It enables me to slightly mis-define the comment card in my syntax highlighter which reduces the chance of it mis-recognising $#array and similar as the start of a comment.

I don't like the POD idea, but then I am not a fan of POD anyway. The need to use 5 lines of source-space to embed a single line of POD has always bugged me immensely.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algoritm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Data::Dumper::Simple
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jul 31, 2004 at 21:56 UTC

    That is indeed a pain, and a reason I don't tend to interleave POD and code. It's also not an easy problem to solve; the best I can think of is a directive that implies cutting back to code right away. That buys two lines, at least.

    Still, I can't shake the feeling that it shouldn't be hard to write a reasonably easy to use dumper that need not rely on source filters.

    Makeshifts last the longest.