> > I am happy to announce that I have made much progress on portingI am not adding checks to Pod::Simple, I was advised that would be a bad
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> I know this is opening a huge can of worms but I'd be interested if you
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
Also, if you still want to see what error checks I am rewriting, they are
Thanks for your concern,
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.