Fwd: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting codes)

Comments?

Best,

David

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Christopher J. Madsen via RT" <[email protected]>
> Date: March 15, 2010 10:09:12 AM PDT
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting codes) 
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> 
> Mon Mar 15 13:09:05 2010: Request 55602 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by CJM
>       Queue: Pod-Simple
>     Subject: Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting codes)
>   Broken in: 3.09
>    Severity: Important
>       Owner: Nobody
>  Requestors: [email protected]
>      Status: new
> Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=55602 >
> 
> 
> In bug #12239, Schwern expected "C<<< C<<foo>> >>>" to render as a
> literal "C<<foo>>", and you changed Pod-Simple to make that happen.  But
> I disagree with this interpretation of the spec, and consider it a
> serious loss of functionality.
> 
> Where exactly in perlpod or perlpodspec does it suggest that characters
> inside C<> are treated differently than those inside C<< >>?  As I read
> the spec, the only difference is in how the end of the code is located.
> Once you've located the end of the content (and stripped the mandatory
> whitespace from the C<< >> version), it's rendered the same.
> 
> That is, I claim that "C<<< C<<foo>> >>>" is a C<> nested inside a C<>,
> and Schwern should have written ""C<<< CZ<><<foo>> >>>" or "C<<<
> CE<lt><foo>> >>>".
> 
> perlpod clearly states that "C<$a E<lt>=E<gt> $b>" is rendered as "$a
> <=> $b".  You're saying that
> 
>    C<$a E<lt>=E<gt> $b>
>  C<< $a E<lt>=E<gt> $b >>
> 
> mean two completely different things, and I don't see where the spec
> supports that.
> 
> Otherwise, how am I supposed to write:
> 
> S<< C<< name => value >> >>
> 
> or 
> 
> S<< C<< <bug-PostScript-Calendar AT rt.cpan.org> >> >>
>