hippo, I don't think it's mentioning "foo.pl" which solved the problem when in a .pl extension:
cmd.exe>type foo.pl && perldoc foo.pl #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =item foo.pl My Documentation =cut No documentation found for "foo.pl". cmd.exe>type foo.pl && perldoc foo.pl #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =head1 foo.pl My Documentation =cut foo.pl My Documentation cmd.exe>type foo.pl && perldoc foo.pl #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =begin foo.pl My Documentation =cut No documentation found for "foo.pl". cmd.exe>type foo.pl && perldoc foo.pl #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =head1 SomethingElse My Documentation =cut SomethingElse My Documentation cmd.exe>type foo.pl && perldoc foo.pl #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =head4 SomethingElse My Documentation =cut SomethingElse My Documentation cmd.exe>type foo.pod && perldoc foo.pod #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; =pod My Documentation =cut My Documentation
Per that experiment: inside a .pl, it's solely a matter of whether there was a =head: it doesn't matter whether it's a =head1 or =head4; if a .pl has a head, then perldoc is fine, whether or not it mentions the name of the .pl. Meanwhile, the .pod is fine with just =pod, and doesn't need a mention of =head to be properly parsed/rendered by perldoc.
In reply to Re^4: Mysterious crash of perldoc
by pryrt
in thread Mysterious crash of perldoc
by Textorix
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |