Re^3: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Jan 21, 2012 at 05:21 UTC
In my world, there's only place for POD to go: at the end of the file. After getting used to Emacs's docstrings, I find that style annoying. The docstring is actually within the function, explains its usage, and gets extracted when you compile documentation. If you put all your POD at the end, you either lose the ability to put usage next to the function, or have to duplicate your POD in a comment.	[reply]
Re^5: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 23, 2012 at 16:17 UTC
POD != comment. The intended audience is different. If you treat them as the same, both sides will suffer. Comments are for the programmer, that is, the person maintaining the code. POD is there to create a manual. The intended audience is the user of the code. I usually do not document my subs in the same order as they appear in the file, and I typically have quite a number of subs that will not be documented in the user manual. And I want to be able to reorder my subs, or my documentation, without having to reorder the other. have to duplicate your POD in a comment. So what? If the goal is to minimize the work you need to do as a programmer, don't write any POD or comments. If the the goal is to create a better product, I don't care if there's some duplication going on. Copy and paste is cheap and easy. (But it will be a selective copy and paste anyway).	[reply]
Re^6: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Jan 23, 2012 at 16:46 UTC
Not really -- programmer documentation is for the programmer. "C-h f" shows the doc-string. If I want to see what a function does, I type "C-h f"; if I change a function, I edit the doc-string it contains. Emacs also has a manual -- written in the god-awful Texinfo format and updated by hand -- that provides higher-level documentation. FWIW, I try to document my modules with POD next to each public function and a higher-level description at the end.	[reply]
Re^7: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 23, 2012 at 18:15 UTC
Re^8: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Jan 24, 2012 at 16:46 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by LanX (Saint) on Jan 24, 2012 at 17:11 UTC
> After getting used to Emacs's docstrings, I find that style annoying BTW: One of the clear advantages of Python are docstrings. I agree to a certain point, that docstrings are perfect for "source" documentation for maintainers. If it comes to "usage" documentation separated POD is IMHO better to show the big picture. Since this thread is about extracting subs we are clearly talking about the first kind of documentation I regularly tried to have discussions on that matter (since there is a big overlap between both kind of documentation) but that normally ends in flame wars... :( Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^4: Meta-perl - sorting my perl subs with perl? by Syndaryl (Initiate) on Jan 23, 2012 at 14:56 UTC
As I mentioned upstream, it's difficult to subgroup this... morass more. I've already pulled out the content that's going to be on every document into another module from the stuff that's optional and might show up "anywhere" into another module. The naming scheme on the subs is already going to group subs sorted alphabetically about as well as I can get them further grouped. It's either that or I'll have three to five modules with two to four subs in them (for the few tables that have a few variations), and a gigantic "misc" lump. Which is barely helpful. But thank you, /^sub/ is a facepalmingly simple solution. Of course I don't need to balance braces. Jeeze. All this text is rotting my brain.	[reply]