POD Formatting (was Re: Literal Values)

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Or number the sections like this:
>
> =section # blah
> =section ## subblah
> =section ### subsubblah
> =section ## subblah2
> =section # blah2
>
> And let the author only worry about "sectioning" and not about
> numbering at all.

I like that decently.  Obviously, making authors specify section 
numbers would be absurd.

It still seems like we have a lot of issues in general with things like 
bullets, etc., not easily knowing when they're only one paragraph vs. 
more than one paragraph.  I'm still not sure what the preferred 
"generic grouping" mechanism is for cases like this, where you need to 
specify where a previous format ends.

In any event, this is good enough for now.  Let's redirect all 
discussion on A Better Pod to the Pod-people list, and go with what we 
have unless and until they tell us otherwise.

Sean M. Burke wrote:
> On the Pod-people list, we have mostly decided that those inference 
> rules are more trouble than they are worth, precisely because they are 
> unpredictable, and typically there's no way to disable them.  I am 
> entirely happy with a future for Pod where no formatter (or, god help 
> us, a parser) thinks it its duty to turn "an O(N) solution" into "an 
> C<O(N)> solution".

You are my hero.

MikeL