in reply to Re^4: POD troubles
in thread POD troubles
Cheers Rolf
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^6: POD troubles (RTFM)
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on May 14, 2011 at 11:34 UTC | |
I was indeed reading the fine manual, read it end to end several times, and cross-checked versions 10.1 and the current 12.whatever. My observation stands: the example which is implied to work as-is on current translators contradicts the description given earlier. If it's not intended to work, why explain that it must be changed for "older" parsers? If it never works at all, it's a silly thing to say. I think I can afford the -- vote. But I think it's unwarranted, after re-reading my post. | [reply] |
by LanX (Saint) on May 14, 2011 at 11:48 UTC | |
Cheers Rolf UPDATE: Hints for Writing Pod from perlpod, underlines added UPDATE:
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on May 14, 2011 at 12:08 UTC | |
It doesn't say "POD files can't do this." It says "Many older Pod translators...". Meaning that others don't. "will make such Pod translators...fail". Not "will never work", but will make (only) those old nasty ones fail. That is, it's not backward compatible. I don't see it meaning anything else. It's not like one of those cube pictures where it snaps into something different once you realize what was meant... it's saying that this example is not backward compatible, NOT that it's illegal. Arguing is pointless. Clearly it is either wrong or at least capable of being misinterpreted by someone who read it carefully.
| [reply] |
by LanX (Saint) on May 14, 2011 at 12:15 UTC |