Scrunched up string literals in Pod::Simple tests

As I look in Pod::Simple's ./t/ dir...
Gawd those tests I made with \n\n's in them, with like ten lines 
squooshed into one blob with \n\n\n etc, like this:

print "#\n# Tests for simple =item *'s\n";
ok( $x->_out("\n=over\n\n=item *\n\nStuff\n\n=item *\n\nBar 
I<baz>!\n\n=back\n\n"),
     '<Document><over-bullet 
indent="4"><item-bullet>Stuff</item-bullet><item-bullet>Bar 
<I>baz</I>!</item-bullet></over-bullet></Document>'
);

...are horrible!!

I mean, I guess this is okay:
ok( Pod::Simple::XMLOutStream->_out("\n=head1 =head1\n"),
     '<Document><head1>=head1</head1></Document>'
);

But it started with that and just kinda went down that path and kept 
going.
Now, THERE IS A REASON.  But not a great one!
I think I *wanted* to be a sane person and use

q{

=over

=item *...
...

=back

}

But:

1) I worried that Perl, in running the program that constitutes this 
test, would try to parse that as actual pod!  It's not supposed to, I 
think, but... But but but.
Ditto with <<EOPOD stuff, which (come to think of it) looks better 
than a many-line q{...} thing.

2) Especially: I think was I worried about what newline format this 
test file might be in, and so, I worried what newline format would 
appear in that q{...}.  Recall that MacPerl = \cm, Unix = \cj, some 
other stuff = \cm\cj, and it's all messy and hurts my head.

However, NOW it occurs to me that I could have worked around BOTH 
problems by just having a dummy | or whatever (a backtick, a ~, 
anything) in the first column of every line, like so...
And to an inverse problem, the trouble of XML blobs that contain 
newlines...

Here, this should be a cure for what ails ya.

First pod as a straight string literal, then as a |-thing in a q{...}, 
then as a |-thing inside a HERE-doc, calling unbar.

Then XML as a straight string literal (well, three concatted 
together), then as a |-thing in a q{...}, then as a |-thing inside a 
HERE-doc, calling no_nls.


use strict; use warnings;

my $pod_really =
"\n\n=over\n\n=item *...\n...\n\n=back\n\nStuff whatever.\n\n";

my $pod_q_ish = unbar( q{
|
|=over
|
|=item *...
|...
|
|=back
|
|Stuff whatever.
|
}
);


my $pod_here_ish = unbar( <<EOP
|
|=over
|
|=item *...
|...
|
|=back
|
|Stuff whatever.
|
EOP
);

# Trying |-initial lines

print "Pod_Really and Pod_Q_ish differ!\n\n",
   "{$pod_really}\n\n{$pod_q_ish}\n\n" unless
     $pod_really  eq  $pod_q_ish;
print "Pod_Really and Pod_Here_ish differ!\n\n",
   "{$pod_really}\n\n{$pod_here_ish}\n\n" unless
     $pod_really  eq  $pod_here_ish;

# Now XML

my $xml_really =
  qq[<Document><over-bullet indent="4"><item-bullet>]
.qq[Stuff</item-bullet><item-bullet>Bar <I>baz</I>!]
.qq[</item-bullet></over-bullet></Document>]
;

my $xml_q_ish = no_nls( q[
<Document><over-bullet indent="4"><item-bullet>
Stuff</item-bullet><item-bullet>Bar <I>baz</I>!
</item-bullet></over-bullet></Document>
]);

my $xml_here_ish = no_nls( <<EOX
<Document><over-bullet indent="4"><item-bullet>
Stuff</item-bullet><item-bullet>Bar <I>baz</I>!
</item-bullet></over-bullet></Document>
EOX
);

print "XML_Really and XML_Q_ish differ!\n\n",
   "{$xml_really}\n\n{$xml_here_ish}\n\n" unless
     $xml_really  eq  $xml_q_ish;

print "XML_Really and XML_Here_ish differ!\n\n",
   "{$xml_really}\n\n{$xml_here_ish}\n\n" unless
     $xml_really  eq  $xml_here_ish;

print "End.";  # <--- should be the only thing said.



sub unbar  {
   my($x) = join '', @_;
   for($x) {
     #Break where a '|' follows anything newline-ish:
     #
     s<\A\|><\n\|>;
        # ^^ Degen case: where a | is the very first character.

     s<[\cm\cj]+\|><\n>g; # Now for real.
   }
   return $x
}

sub no_nls { # returns, minus any newlines
   my $n = join '', @_;
   $n =~ s/[\cm\cj]+//g;
   return $n;
}


__END__

That should run without saying anything about differing.

Use it, adapt it, or not, it's up to you to figure out what makes 
things less like Lovecraftian camouflage to your programmery eyes.



(As with vast vast areas of my life, I have to mark this unbar and 
no_nls things as another (now decade-old) pesky occurrence of: "Now, 
you'd THINK that I would have thought of that!")


But whether the subject is myself, or anything else in the world, I 
have noticed that the phrase "Now, you'd THINK..." have had a pretty 
sad track record lately AMIRITE??