Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
tpf-gsoc-students
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion GSoC Status Update
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Marc Green  
View profile  
 More options Jul 27 2011, 9:58 am
From: Marc Green <pongu...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:58:57 -0400
Local: Wed, Jul 27 2011 9:58 am
Subject: Re: GSoC Status Update
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> > I am happy to announce that I have made much progress on porting
> > Pod::Checker this week. I have made a list of all the errors that
> > Pod::Simple already checks for, and by comparing that to what
> Pod::Checker
> > additionally checks for, I can efficiently implement the rest. So that is
> > what I have been doing. There is a minor snag in one of the error checks,
> > the one that warns if there is any text after a =pod directive, because
> > Pod::Simple does not offer any way to access said text. To overcome this
> I
> > am adding such a feature to Pod::Simple::Blackbox, so I should resume
> > porting the error checks shortly.

> When I looked at this before I found there tended to be significant
> disagreement over whether the Pod::Checker checks were actually good
> checks that ought to be included in Pod::Simple.

> I know this is opening a huge can of worms but I'd be interested if you
> could post the list of checks you're adding to Pod::Simple.

> Michael

I am not adding checks to Pod::Simple, I was advised that would be a bad
idea (and harder to do). Rather, I am rewriting Pod::Checker to have
Pod::Simple as a superclass instead of Pod::Parser, and in doing so I need
to rewrite the checks *within Pod::Checker* using Pod::Simple.

Rereading my email I realize my ambiguity, but I hope I have now cleared up
any confusion. If not, let me know.

Also, if you still want to see what error checks I am rewriting, they are
available at
https://github.com/marcgreen/perl-pod-checker/tree/edit-bb/cpan/Pod-P....
There are three files: ps-errors, pc-errors, and pc-errors-todo. The first
is a list of what Pod::Simple checks for, the second is what Pod::Checker
checks for, and the third is a list of the checks I have left to rewrite.

Thanks for your concern,
Marc


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google