Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pod parsing: implicit code block w/ varying indentation #2862

Closed
p6rt opened this issue Aug 14, 2012 · 3 comments
Closed

pod parsing: implicit code block w/ varying indentation #2862

p6rt opened this issue Aug 14, 2012 · 3 comments

Comments

@p6rt
Copy link

p6rt commented Aug 14, 2012

Migrated from rt.perl.org#114478 (status was 'resolved')

Searchable as RT114478$

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 14, 2012

From @softmoth

=begin pod

S26 has the following Pod text. It's clearly intended to be a single code block.
However, Rakudo currently parses it as 4 separate code blocks. On IRC,
tadzik says it's not clear if Rakudo is correct (and this example should be
wrapped in an explicit =begin code ... =end code), or if the S26 Pod is correct
and Rakudo should parse it as a single block.

Opening this ticket to remind Tadzik to check with Damian on this and either
fix S26 or Rakudo.

Here's the example​:

In other words, C<.WHY> and C<.WHEREFORE> are inverse operations​:

  .WHY
  ----------------------------
  | |
  | v
  ----------------- -----------------
  | Declared code | | Documentation |
  | object | | object |
  ----------------- -----------------
  ^ |
  | |
  ----------------------------
  .WHEREFORE

When the L<default C<DOC INIT> block|#How Pod is parsed and processed>
renders these Pod objects, it automatically includes information about
the declarator as well.

=end pod

# This is parsed as 4 Pod​::Block​::Code instead of just one.
$=pod.perl.say;

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 30, 2014

From @hoelzro

This is fixed as of the S26-WHY merge (bf1b4db5168f0cd2db35df0c298fe3e593e8abda)

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 30, 2014

@hoelzro - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'

@p6rt p6rt closed this as completed Aug 30, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant