in reply to Re^4: matching POD footnote
in thread matching POD footnote

I have to say, a very stupid exercise!

you can only show how to write either incomplete or redundant code.

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

UPDATE

to answer AnoMonk:

Duplicating the POD-grammar in a separate parser is practically the same sin like writing a source filter for Perl code.

So either incomplete or redundant code, like already said!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: matching POD footnote
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 18, 2013 at 10:14 UTC

    I have to say, a very stupid exercise! you can only show how to write incomplete or redundant code.

    And how does that make it a stupid exercise?

[reply]
Re^6: matching POD footnote (updated)
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 20, 2013 at 08:19 UTC

    Duplicating the POD-grammar in a separate parser is practically the same sin like writing a source filter for Perl code.

    So either incomplete or redundant code, like already said!

    What would you assign as an exercise to learn lexing/parsing? Would you invent a format, or would that be equally sinful?

[reply]
      An example which doesn't manipulate nested constructs in the input, then supposed to be processed by another parser.

      Like extracting nested constructs from HTML ...¹

      Telling a student to reinvent a complete POD-parser is hardly a good exercise.

      Or did you show us an intelligent or at least working solution?

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

      Update

      ¹) Or replacing simple constructs in POD.

[reply]

        Like extracting information from HTML ...

        Sounds exactly like extracting information from pseudo-pod, the OPs dilemma

        Telling a student to reinvent a complete POD-parser is hardly a good exercise.

        It hardly sounds like this is the assignment

        Or did you show us a working or at least intelligent solution?

        Eh?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom