Re: pod checker that finds missing internal links?

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Marek Rouchal wrote:
> It is nice that you are sharing your thoughts with us -
> but frankly speaking I do not see any concrete point.
> L<> and =head/=item may not be the perfect solution,
> but it is all that's been there for years, and changing
> this (by introducing a new anchor syntax) would require 
> basically to rewrite all POD. Or to provide a semi-perfect 

Certainly not.  The new anchor would be an addition.  In case
it was not clear, the rant about =head/=item possible inconsitencies
was a side note, maybe trying to convey my ideas on a suboptimal
design of the language that I think should not be carried on
in further changes in the language.

And I think that the L<> semantics is powerful enough to do
any kind of link.

> and the same way you dislike X<> being an anchor, others
> may actually like the idea; and hey - you are not forced
> to link against them from elsewhere, are you?

I do not disagree on X being rendered as an anchor, but
it should be an index entry anchor, not a label anchor.

> So perhaps the concepts of POD are not perfect, but they
> have been practical for a long time.

But maybe there is room for improvement?

> So show a patch that corrects things along the lines that
> you wrote, which might be more convincing.

I am ready to do some patches, but that's not the point here.
There are design issues too, on the language itself.

-- 
Pat