Re^2: No good deed goes unpunished

This seems unnecessarily harsh. It sounds like talexb was testing his code, found errors, and tracked down the source. There's no clear indication that anything flawed was released, and the error was fixed; so why complain that he tested the code before the POD?

I'm particularly happy with No good deed goes unpunished because I was, literally, just this minute reading through perlpod and wondering "Do I have to end a =begin/=end block with a =cut?", but feeling too lazy to test.

Comment on Re^2: No good deed goes unpunished Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: No good deed goes unpunished by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Aug 03, 2009 at 17:42 UTC
What had I changed or added recently? Why, nothing but POD, your honour, honest. That reads to me like talexb had working code, added pod, then noticed that the code had stopped working and started tracking it down as a code problem without at any point having looked at the documentation created by the pod he'd added. I have to agree with JavaFan's reaction of "why are you bothering to add pod if you're not going to run pod2text over it and see what it outputs?"	[reply]
Re^4: No good deed goes unpunished by talexb (Chancellor) on Aug 04, 2009 at 13:59 UTC
I have to agree with JavaFan's reaction of "why are you bothering to add pod if you're not going to run pod2text over it and see what it outputs?" Because POD is relatively new to me. I'd never heard of podchecker before Anonymonk mentioned it to me. And you're right, I had working code and then went back and documented it, which then broke things. Lesson learned. Alex / talexb / Toronto "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds	[reply]