Re: GSoC Status Update

On 07/27/2011 07:58 AM, Marc Green wrote:
>
>      > I am happy to announce that I have made much progress on porting
>      > Pod::Checker this week. I have made a list of all the errors that
>      > Pod::Simple already checks for, and by comparing that to what
>     Pod::Checker
>      > additionally checks for, I can efficiently implement the rest. So
>     that is
>      > what I have been doing. There is a minor snag in one of the error
>     checks,
>      > the one that warns if there is any text after a =pod directive,
>     because
>      > Pod::Simple does not offer any way to access said text. To
>     overcome this I
>      > am adding such a feature to Pod::Simple::Blackbox, so I should resume
>      > porting the error checks shortly.
>
>     When I looked at this before I found there tended to be significant
>     disagreement over whether the Pod::Checker checks were actually good
>     checks that ought to be included in Pod::Simple.
>
>     I know this is opening a huge can of worms but I'd be interested if you
>     could post the list of checks you're adding to Pod::Simple.
>
>     Michael
>
>
> I am not adding checks to Pod::Simple, I was advised that would be a bad
> idea (and harder to do). Rather, I am rewriting Pod::Checker to have
> Pod::Simple as a superclass instead of Pod::Parser, and in doing so I
> need to rewrite the checks *within Pod::Checker* using Pod::Simple.
>
> Rereading my email I realize my ambiguity, but I hope I have now cleared
> up any confusion. If not, let me know.
>
> Also, if you still want to see what error checks I am rewriting, they
> are available at
> https://github.com/marcgreen/perl-pod-checker/tree/edit-bb/cpan/Pod-Parser.
> There are three files: ps-errors, pc-errors, and pc-errors-todo. The
> first is a list of what Pod::Simple checks for, the second is what
> Pod::Checker checks for, and the third is a list of the checks I have
> left to rewrite.
>
> Thanks for your concern,
> Marc

Here are a couple of pod checker errors that are in error, AFAICT

One is that it warns on any E<> above 255 as being out of range.  I 
think this is plain wrong, as people do this and it works.  Perhaps 
there are some circumstances when it is wrong, I don't know.

The other is that it warns that use of a link to a man page with a 
section number is deprecated.  We have discussed that on this list 
before, and as I remember it, the consensus was it should not be deprecated.