Re^2: Unexpected HTML from POD

Thanks. It seems the behaviour is intended but undocumented! Just above the comments in the source code that you quoted is a regex test that is looking for certain specific things in brackets. One of the things it looks for - six lines above your comment - is nothing. So in the POD I am giving it, it sees a function name followed by nothing in brackets and that matches this regex. Therefore, like Bill Gates, it knows best. I can't see any options that refer to this and it seems that the only way to change the behaviour is to change the code. The smallest amount of work, since I want this to work on any machine, is to change my code. I have code that writes POD, and changing this to include s/()/(Z<>)/g is not too challenging. I think all I have to do is work out which of those characters need escaping.

Regards,

John Davies

Comment on Re^2: Unexpected HTML from POD Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Unexpected HTML from POD by LanX (Saint) on Jan 12, 2011 at 23:26 UTC
> Thanks. It seems the behaviour is intended but undocumented! Hmm, will you send a bug report? Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^4: Unexpected HTML from POD by davies (Monsignor) on Jan 13, 2011 at 00:18 UTC
I hadn't planned to, since the behaviour was clearly intended. If you think it would help, I shall gladly do so if I can work out the intricacies and identity of the bug reporting system. Regards, John Davies	[reply]
Re^5: Unexpected HTML from POD by toolic (Bishop) on Jan 13, 2011 at 00:53 UTC
identity of the bug reporting system perlbug, assuming you want to report on a Core module/utlitity, such as Pod::Html or pod2html.	[reply]
Re^5: Unexpected HTML from POD by LanX (Saint) on Jan 13, 2011 at 01:30 UTC
> I hadn't planned to, since the behaviour was clearly intended. If you think it would help, I shall gladly do so... OK it's not a classical bug ... :) ... but there is no "missing documentation reporting system" so you'll have to rely on bug reporting. (sorry I assumed perlbug is well known) IMHO you could even suggest an extended POD text and attach a diff, if you want. Cheers Rolf UPDATE: I'm still not sure if an unspecified feature isn't a bug. If other well known POD parser like Pod::POM don't implement it, because the authors don't know about it, it's a real problem!	[reply]