Another "Perl Culture" kind of question:

For CPAN packages, is it normal/acceptable/OK to have the POD for a
module in a separate .pod file, instead of inside the .pm?
MyModule.pm
MyModule.pod
MyModule/SubThing1.pm
MyModule/SubThing1.pod
...etc
Of course, pod_coverage.t will need tweaking.
Besides that, is this unusual or considered not good to do?

[For this case, I autogenerate much of the POD for the ~100 .pm's,
so it makes it easier for me to keep them separate.]

Thanx,
- Steve

On Jan 11, 8:18 am, Steve Roscio <steve.ros... [at] hp.com> wrote:

Hi Steve

> For CPAN packages, is it normal/acceptable/OK to have the POD for a
> module in a separate .pod file, instead of inside the .pm?

Usually the POD is in the same file as the *.pm, but does not have to
be.
Some authors are concerned with the size of the POD affecting the
speed of Perl parsing the *.pm, and hence prefer to keep the POD
separately.
They're your modules, so suit yourself.

ron [at] savage.net.au wrote:

} On Jan 11, 8:18 am, Steve Roscio <steve.ros... [at] hp.com> wrote:
}
} Hi Steve
}
} > For CPAN packages, is it normal/acceptable/OK to have the POD for a
} > module in a separate .pod file, instead of inside the .pm?
}
} Usually the POD is in the same file as the *.pm, but does not have to
} be.
} Some authors are concerned with the size of the POD affecting the
} speed of Perl parsing the *.pm, and hence prefer to keep the POD
} separately.

Can't you ameliorate that by putting the POD info after an __END__?

/Bernie\

--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie [at] fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--