Re: Pod::Simple output as POD

On May 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Karl Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:

>> My only comment on ‘ExtractPod’ as a name would be that all the other modules in the Pod::Simple dist that do similar things are simply named ‘Pod::Simple::$FORMAT’, (e.g., Pod::Simple::HTML, Pod::Simple::RTF, etc.)

Probably should have been Pod::Simple::Format::*. :-(

>> At the end of the day, you’ve done the work to get it out the door and as far as I’m concerned, you can call it whatever you like. 8^)
> 
> It's more a matter of what is the least worst name to help people at a glance know what it does.  I imagine that if it were named simply 'Pod' that people would think. "I've already got Pod input, why would I want Pod output", and either investigate, or blow it off.  So that's why I came up with ExtractPod, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Like John, I don’t much care. I agree that Pod::Simple::Pod lacks necessary information. ExtractPod seems fine to me. Uh, though there is this:

       perldoc [-h] [-D] [-t] [-u] [-m] [-l] [-F]
            [-i] [-V] [-T] [-r]
            [-d destination_file]
            [-o formatname]
            [-M FormatterClassName]
            [-w formatteroption:value]
            [-n nroff-replacement]
            [-X]
            [-L language_code]
            PageName|ModuleName|ProgramName|URL

So the formatter arg to -M would be:

    perldoc -M ExtractPod

Which also seems a little weird. Maybe Pod::Simple::PodFormat?

Anyway, I’ve no strong opinions.

Best,

David