use Perl

• POD parsing (Score:2, Insightful)

  by Matts (1087)

  I think the best idea in those threads is ziggy's [perl.org] idea to use SAX as the canonical representation of POD. It was always the idea of the Orchard project to make orchard nodes the canonical representation of everything, but orchard nodes turned out to be too complex to install, so we ended up with hashes in PerlSAX2, which isn't so bad (albeit a bit memory expensive). Anyway, what I'm suggesting is you follow the PerlSAX2 node structure and event model, and we can then very easily write XML output or HTML out
  • My uses for equivalences (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jjott (2657) on 2002.01.04 11:00 (#2678) Homepage

    I guess the only thing I don't get is the notion of being about to override tags for certain effects that will be placed within the actual POD itsself.

    My perspective is one of writing a module. I don't think about HTML, DocBook, or whatever final target when I am writing it. I am just thinking about what I need to express and trying to do it as consistently as possible! If the DocBook user wants to have certain tags exchanged for something else would this not be a feature of the pod2docbook?

    On the other hand - if there are more sanctioned tags for various things - that's cool. Then maybe my POD would be even better. As of now I'm not entirely happy with what POD does to my code.

    Would you allow me to do something such as make an equivalence for not only rendering tags but content as well?
    

    =equate D "I<Default:> $\n"
    
    =equate R "I<Returns:> $\n"
    
    D<blort>
    R<foo>
    becomes
    I<Default:> blort
    
    I<Returns:> foo
    

    Obviously you cook the syntax how ever you want - just the idea I wanted to express. :)

    In any event, what I see you thinking about should make your parsers a lot more flexible and reliable. Good for you!

    Reply to This

    Parent