Re^2: Function signatures in POD-headlines/pseudo code! Is there a standard?

Ok, but being precise this would lead to

=head3 C<< $mech->content_as_png() >>

=head3 C<< $mech->content_as_png( $tab ) >>

=head3 C<< $mech->content_as_png( $tab, $x0, $y0, $x1, $y1 ) >>
[download]

Hmm ... IMHO a meta-syntax can be shorter though precise, but this needs a common consensus...

Cheers Rolf

Comment on Re^2: Function signatures in POD-headlines/pseudo code! Is there a standard? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Function signatures in POD-headlines/pseudo code! Is there a standard? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 07, 2009 at 18:03 UTC
Occasionally, you'll get three alternatives and that's fine. If you have more than three alternatives, your function's parameter list is probably too complex and needs a redesign anyway.	[reply]
Re^4: Function signatures in POD-headlines/pseudo code! Is there a standard? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 07, 2009 at 18:09 UTC
> If you have more than three alternatives, your function's parameter list is probably too complex and needs a redesign anyway. Good point! Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^3: Function signatures in POD-headlines/pseudo code! Is there a standard? by moritz (Cardinal) on Dec 07, 2009 at 18:33 UTC
You can list the empty and the full signature, and mention in the prose text that they are optional, and leaving out some of them at the end is allowed too. but this needs a common consensus No. The Perl community is far too big to always reach an consensus, especially not for a topic that's subject to personal taste as much as this topic.	[reply]