FAQ

On May 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Karl Williamson 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

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 7 of 13 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppod-people @
categoriesperl
postedAug 12, '14 at 2:07p
activeMay 15, '16 at 3:20a
posts13
users7
websiteperl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase