Re: Removal of specific Pod::Checker warnings

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Shawn H Corey <[email protected]>wrote:

> On 11/08/11 10:37 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> I'm not sure about that.  Although a POD parser should be forgiving, a
> checker should not.  I think it should report things that are not spec even
> if the parsers accept them.
>

I agree that a POD checker should report *all* errors/warnings, but is
having an argumentless =item really a warning?

By Pod::Checker's defintion, a warning indicates bad style, so that would
mean that having an argumentless =item is bad style. Personally, I don't
think it is; I find it a convenient shorthand. Do you disagree?