Updates to site documentation

It is with some reluctance that I ever consider posting this node with the suggestion of additional work for the mighty who run this site, but nevertheless ...

In replying to a node recently, I wanted to add a reference to the our function, however found that (almost?) all the Perl manual documentation in the form of perlfunc:, perlman: and alike are from 5.005. With this in mind, I resorted to simply referencing perldoc -f our in the reply node.

However, given the wide-spread usage of 5.6.x versions of Perl, is it prehaps time for the Site Documentation Clan to look at updating some of the documentation nodes? Or even better, creating a host of nodes with perldelta and like for the 5.6.x tree parallel to the existing nodes? Alternatively, could all these documentation changes be summarised into a single node within tutorials prehaps?

Comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcomed.

perl -e 's&&rob@cowsnet.com.au&&&split/[@.]/&&s&.com.&_&&&print'

Comment on Updates to site documentation Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Updates to site documentation by blakem (Monsignor) on Mar 06, 2002 at 11:20 UTC
Since perldoc.com does such a good job displaying and formatting perl documentation, and since its as easy to link to as `[perldoc://our]` (i.e. our) I don't really see a need for perlmonks to duplicate the effort. -Blake	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Updates to site documentation by Juerd (Abbot) on Mar 06, 2002 at 12:10 UTC
I like viewing the docs without exiting the site, or even moving my focus to a terminal. Besides, I like the black theme over here, and the white perldoc site is kind of painful to my eyes after having used Perl Monks for a few minutes :) Having docs online over here is good, but the docs really need to be updated to a recent version of Perl if we continue to say we're trying to be serious... ++ vs lbh qrpbqrq guvf hfvat n ge va Crey :) Nabgure bar vs lbh qvq fb jvgubhg ernqvat n znahny svefg. -- vs lbh hfrq OFQ pnrfne ;) - Whreq	[reply]
Re: Re: Updates to site documentation by drewbie (Chaplain) on Mar 06, 2002 at 16:02 UTC
If having perl documentation on PM is duplication, why is it here at all? I agree w/ Juerd that it's sometimes nice to not have to leave site site to view docs. But I do think that if we have docs here, they should be up to date. The only thing worse than no documentation is old/incorrect docs. And 5.6.1 has been out for some time now, so it's not exactly bleeding edge anymore. 5.7.3 has that distinction now. See Perl Versions for the lowdown.	[reply]
Re: Updates to site documentation by ignatz (Vicar) on Mar 06, 2002 at 17:06 UTC
The only advantage that I can think of to this is that here the documentation could be commented upon. ()-() ()-() \"/ DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR PACO! \"/ ` `	[reply]
Re: Re: Updates to site documentation by drewbie (Chaplain) on Mar 06, 2002 at 18:00 UTC
Now that is a great reason to have documentation on PM! Somehow I missed that aspect. You never know when you'll get a nugget of gold buried in comments to the online docs. I believe PHP & mysql docs both have the ability to add comments, and I've found a few comments that helped me out. It is potentially a great way to clear up abigiuities in the docs, and also a way for the original writer to see what needs to be reviewed for the next edition.	[reply]