RE: Project Start: Section 1

Larry Wall wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : (I'm also hoping POD itself will change to be more 
> : descriptive, perhaps partly based on what we learn here, but
> : that'll be in the distant future.)
> 
> You are certainly authorized to experiment with POD variants in the
> near future.  We've already said that POD will be changing, 
> particularly in the semantics of =for/=end.

Perhaps Sean O'Rouke (POD person and the Perl6 grammarian) or some other
knowledgible individual can point us in the direction any particularly good
documentation, articles, and/or code examples of how to mess around with
extending POD and pod parsers.


Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Perhaps we can add an =bullet command that's the equivalent of:
> 
> 	=over 4
> 	
> 	=item *
> 
> 	(one paragraph)
> 	
> 	=back
> 
> Unless you're numbering or each bullet handles multiple
> paragraphs, there's no reason you need to state the =over/=back
> explicitly, IMHO.

I wonder if it'd be feasible to do lists something like:

*> level1
   >> level2
      +>>> level3
           *>>>> level4
           <<<<
      >>> level3
      <<<
   <<
>  level1
<

resulting in:

*   level1
    -   level2
        1   level3
            o   level4
        2   level3
*   level1

Where the * signifies unordered, + ordered, > over, and < back? And if there
really is no reason to explicitly require the =back, then it'd look even
better:

*> level1
   >> level2
      +>>> level3
           *>>>> level4
      >>>  level3
>  level1


Or if the leading = really must be required:

=*> level1
    =>> level2
        =+>>> level3
              =*>>>> level4
        =>>>  level3
=>  level1

--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist

ScriptPro                   Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road               Main: 913.384.1008
Mission, KS 66202              Fax: 913.384.2180
www.scriptpro.com          [email protected]