in reply to Re^5: matching POD footnote (updated)
in thread matching POD footnote

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?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: matching POD footnote
by LanX (Saint) on Jul 20, 2013 at 09:58 UTC
    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]
        > Sounds exactly like extracting information from pseudo-pod, the OPs dilemma

        nope, he's substituting.

        > Eh?

        yep, that applies to most of your posts.

        You didn't read the OP and you never showed code ...enough said! :)

        Cheers Rolf

        ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom