Re: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake (nested formatting codes)
[email protected] (Ricardo Signes)
| Newsgroups | perl.pod-people |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Allison Randal <[email protected]> [2010-03-16T08:01:49] > David E. Wheeler wrote: > > > >My interpretation of that was that any angle brackets inside should be > >considered literal, and thus escaped. The whole point of `<< >>` AFAICS > >was to allow one to use literal brackets without escaping them, as one must > >do in `<>`. > > That's my interpretation too. If you have to escape every angle > bracket inside doubled-up C<<>> tags, there's really no point in > even having the doubled-up tags. No one is saying that you have to escape every angle bracket inside anything. For example, these should all be fine: The ->, or dereference, operator... Call C<< $object->foo >> If x > 10 All items where C<< $x > 10 >> In the event that C<< $x > L<Foo>->blort >>.... In the first four, there is no ambiguity. We don't have something in the form X<...> where X is [A-Z]. The only thing in question is the last one. The question is whether all characters until the matching \s>> are considered literally or whether they're still Pod. The bug report from CJM seems correct: formatting codes should work inside C<<>>. There is nothing about that change which would require escpaing -> or other non-formatting-code uses of angle brackets. -- rjbs