Re: Cross-referencing RFC 186 with RFC 183 and RFC 79

John Porter wrote:

> > For more flexibility, the test could look at an inline_tests.t.list
> > file in the cwd to determine *which* .pm's should be tested.
> 
> This could be done now, without further ado.
> 
>         ##<TEST>
>         # testing code here...
>         ...
>         ##</TEST>
> 
> Podulation is not needed for that capability.

Agreed.  But then, POD is not needed now anyway.
You can get a similar effect with ##    :-)

But of course, POD sections are more informative than #s.  
IMHO. they would be even more informative if, instead of 
using =head2 or =item to document our APIs, we had things 
like this:

	=method open FILENAME
	...    	
	=cut

Or, for you Javadoc fans, even this:

	=method
	@type class,instance
	@usage	 open FILENAME
	@param	 FILENAME	Path to a file on disk
	@returns the filehandle on success, undef on failure
	=cut

That's why I favor taking generally-useful things and providing
some standardized support for them.  Embedding t-tests in 
source sounds intriguing, and a standardized POD-based approach 
seems like a clean solution.

E'q