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

Eryq wrote [seriously elided by jdp]:
> 
> 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
> 	=method
> 	@type class,instance
> 
> 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.

Yes.  I'd point out that all these things could be done without
requiring any changes to the pod definition.
The Pod::Parser just needs to be sufficiently, generically
empowered.

-- 
John Porter

	We're building the house of the future together.