Re: Removal of specific Pod::Checker warnings

Marc Green <[email protected]> writes:

> Pod::Checker currently warns if there is an '=item' directive with no
> argument (as opposed to '=item *', for example). The description of the
> warning is:

> "=item without any parameters is deprecated. It should either be followed by
> * to indicate an unordered list, by a number (optionally followed by a dot)
> to indicate an ordered (numbered) list or simple text for a definition
> list."

> perlpodspec states "Pod processors must tolerate a bare "=item" as if it
> were "=item *"." Is Pod::Checker's behavior still in line with
> perlpodspec?  Is the use of '=item' without any parameters deprecated?
> Or should that warning be removed from Pod::Checker?

I'd remove it.  It seems like a style thing to me, and while I personally
prefer =item *, I don't see a good reason to require that.

> The second Pod::Checker warning I am emailing about is "No =items in
> =over", which is explained as "The list opened with =over does not
> contain any items." The relevant perlpodspec section states:

> "An "=over" ... "=back" region containing no "=item" paragraphs at all,
> and containing only some number of ordinary/verbatim paragraphs, and
> possibly also some nested "=over" ... "=back" regions, "=for..."
> paragraphs, and "=begin"..."=end" regions. Such an itemless "=over"
> ... "=back" region in Pod is equivalent in meaning to a
> "<blockquote>...</blockquote>" element in HTML."

> Given that there is clearly a use for =itemless =over/=back blocks,
> should it still be a warning? I think no, and instead, Pod::Checker
> should warn about an empty =over/=back block, one that contains nothing
> but whitespace.

I agree -- this one should definitely go.

Thank you for your work on this!

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>