I'll reply to lots of nodes from this thread in one place.

Yes, kudra, something was done. I just finished and went to review the thread before posting the summary and find wonderings already. (:

Yes, a patch was proposed to try to address this. It turned out to be more like Perl pseudo code than a final solution, but after wrangling for a while with the many possible ways to address this, the basic idea in the patch was chosen as a good one. I reworked the patch and made two other versions of it to cover the 3 node types that encompass most of the local documentation that is better maintained at perldoc.

Note that there will be some invalid links due to differences in versions of the documentation, etc. as well as new docs that don't have nodes. And someone will have to update the perldoc version number lists from time to time. There are also a few nodes that should be covered by these changes but aren't. And we should some day add the perldocver setting to user settings so you can select which version the first link takes you to (and then perhaps use that setting for other purposes as well).

For future reference, if you want a response from one of the gods, then I suggest you avoid "and I want them now" (which immediately had me thinking "Tough beans. That issue is trivia compared to some of the things on my list. With that attitude, you'll just have to wait.") and that you don't complain if it takes a few days.

It took several days just to get a good handle on the details of the problem and the consequences of the several possible work-arounds. No, I didn't post a node saying "I've read this. I'm thinking about it. I'll get back to you." (Heck, just reading it wasn't at the top of my list after I read the title.)

Several people have said that they'll write something to update the local documentation. If one of them eventually delivers, then we'll reword the disclaimer but leave the links up.

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")