Re: POD formatter version comments

Shawn H Corey <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2024-03-15 12:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Shawn H Corey<[email protected]>  writes:

>>> I think it should be an option. Sometimes it is necessary to know that
>>> a change in appearance is caused by changes to a module and not to the
>>> generating document.

>> Do we need to explicitly state that it's an option, or would removing
>> the requirement to always do it still be okay?  The way I was thinking
>> of it is that what formatters put into comments is generally up to
>> them; by default, they *can* include anything they want.  Removing the
>> requirement thus just leaves the decision unconstrained.

> I'm not sure what you're saying. If it's an option, then it is
> automatically not a requirement. Unless you mean what information to
> include is the requirement. In which case, having a standard would be
> nice.

I'm trying to figure out if you object to my proposal to delete that
bullet point from perlpodspec.  When I proposed doing that, your reply was
that including that information should be an option.  That confused me
because I didn't think I was removing it as an option, just removing it as
a requirement by removing the bullet point in perlpodspec that tells
people to do it.

If you would be happy with a PR to remove that bullet point, we're just
vigorously agreeing.  :)  Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're asking for
instead.

-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
 00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print