Re: POD doesn't capture code semantics

On 5 Mar 2008, at 18:50, Ian Malpass wrote:
> The backwards-compatibility thing is important if you want your docs  
> to be widely read by a disparate audience. Your suggested syntax  
> renders a document near-useless (totally missing headers, plus error  
> messages) if the POD reader isn't "enhanced POD" capable. That  
> doesn't sound like a recipe for gaining traction.... The drawback of  
> extra verbosity is that it requires documenters to remember to use  
> it, though.

I think the only way to tackle that would be to produce interesting  
tools that made good use of the additional semantic information. But  
yeah, it's unlikely to happen overnight :)

-- 
Andy Armstrong, Hexten