Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/01/02/04:06:29
>> Oh, and while we're on the topic of man pages, how would you treat
>> Perl's man pages (eg Foo::Bar.3). These are extremely invalid names
>> on dos.
>
> What? Perl finally got man pages?? It doesn't use *.pod files
> anymore??? Blasphemy! ;-)
It can optionally install its pods as man pages.
>> I'd suggest that man changes '::' in a man page to a '/', so
>> the man pages can be in subdirs (eg man/cat3/Foo/Bar.3).
> I don't think `man' should dictate to the ported Perl how to rename
> these files in the DJGPP port.
No, of course not - but it would be nice if man translated '::' to
whatever alternative the ported perl uses.
I have my reservations about using '__' instead of '::' though; few
packages have a name with less than three letters. This would give
Foo__xxxxxxxxx.1, where the xxxx would only have three significant
letters in an 8.3 system. Not a lot.
A quick check in /usr/man/man3 on my RH6.2 box shows a few dozen names
that would cause trouble (a few examples: anything from Digest, ExtUtils
or Getopt, as the name + __ is already 8 or longer, Pod::Parser and
Pod::ParseUtils, and several more).
IIRC perl uses a perl script to manufacture and install these man pages,
so I think it should not be that hard to use subdirs if on DOS. Peter?
> How are these files called in the distributions of DOS and Windows
> ports (`:' is invalid on Windows as well)?
I think they simply don't include man versions (IIRC, ActiveState
includes html'ed pod files). I guess 'man' is not used that much
in a GUI environment.
--
Tim Van Holder - Falcon Software N.V.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was posted using plain text. I do not endorse any
products or services that may be hyperlinked to this message.
- Raw text -