Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

metaperl (1904)

metaperl
  (email not shown publicly)
http://www.metaperl.com/

Terrence Brannon has interests in business object design.

Journal of metaperl (1904)

Friday October 24, 2003
08:23 AM

Parse::Recdescent::FAQ --- plateauing?

[ #15372 ]
I am fairly happy with the organization of the FAQ. I just discovered the "=head4" tag, so I will be changing some "=over 4 =item* =back" over to that soon to improve the TOC. I might write something to automate a google search as pretty much all resources (save perlmonks?) that I use to beef up the FAQ be they news or web exist on google somewhere.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • You can google PerlMonks thanks to blakem's [perlmonks.org] nice static archive at perlmonks.thepen.com [thepen.com]. I have a nice little google search link [google.com] which puts the site="" stuff in the field for you.

    You can find more at thepen's [perlmonks.org] homenode, (That's the user which is used to duplicate the info for the static site.), at the original announcement [perlmonks.org] in 2001 (on my birthday!), and at the FAQ on searching [perlmonks.org] the Monastery.

    Have fun searching.

  • One thing which I think could be better done in the Parse::RecDescent FAQ is the attribution or reference of sources so that, in the instance where questions have been directly taken from other sources, readers have the opportunity to follow through back with the original source for further discussions.

    I found this element lacking after I found one such question which I asked on Perlmonks included verbatim in the FAQ with attribution or reference - Whilst I don't have any problem in the least with the lack

    • I think you are right about referencing things and there certainly could be an issue with giving credit where credit is due. If you have any patches to the FAQ I am glad to add them.