<LI><A HREF="#a clear division into tutorial and reference">A clear division into tutorial and reference</A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="#remove the artificial distinction between operators and functions">Remove the artificial distinction between operators and functions</A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="#update the posix extension to conform with the posix 1003.1 edition 2">Update the POSIX extension to conform with the POSIX 1003.1 Edition 2</A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="#to do or not to do">To Do Or Not To Do</A></LI>
<UL>
<LI><A HREF="#making my() work on package variables">Making <A HREF="../../lib/Pod/perlfunc.html#item_my"><CODE>my()</CODE></A> work on ``package'' variables</A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="#or testing defined not truth">``or'' testing defined not truth</A></LI>
<P>There's a lot of documentation that comes with Perl. The quantity of
documentation makes it difficult for users to know which section of
which manpage to read in order to solve their problem. Tom
Christiansen has done much of the documentation work in the past.</P>
<P>
<H2><A NAME="a clear division into tutorial and reference">A clear division into tutorial and reference</A></H2>
<P>Some manpages (e.g., perltoot and perlreftut) clearly set out to
educate the reader about a subject. Other manpages (e.g., perlsub)
are references for which there is no tutorial, or are references with
a slight tutorial bent. If things are either tutorial or reference,
then the reader knows which manpage to read to learn about a subject,
and which manpage to read to learn all about an aspect of that
subject. Part of the solution to this is:</P>
<P>
<H2><A NAME="remove the artificial distinction between operators and functions">Remove the artificial distinction between operators and functions</A></H2>
<P>History shows us that users, and often porters, aren't clear on the
operator-function distinction. The present split in reference
material between perlfunc and perlop hinders user navigation. Given
that perlfunc is by far the larger of the two, move operator reference
<P>We could use more work on helping people understand Perl's new
Unicode support that Larry has created.</P>
<P>
<HR>
<H1><A NAME="modules">Modules</A></H1>
<P>
<H2><A NAME="update the posix extension to conform with the posix 1003.1 edition 2">Update the POSIX extension to conform with the POSIX 1003.1 Edition 2</A></H2>
<P>The current state of the POSIX extension is as of Edition 1, 1991,
whereas the Edition 2 came out in 1996. ISO/IEC 9945:1-1996(E),
ANSI/IEEE Std 1003.1, 1996 Edition. ISBN 1-55937-573-6. The updates
were legion: threads, IPC, and real time extensions.</P>
<DT><STRONG><A NAME="item_Modifiable_%241_et_al">Modifiable $1 et al</A></STRONG><BR>
<DD>
The intent is for this to be a means of editing the matched portions of
the target string.
<P></P></DL>
<P>
<HR>
<H1><A NAME="to do or not to do">To Do Or Not To Do</A></H1>
<P>These are things that have been discussed in the past and roundly
criticized for being of questionable value.</P>
<P>
<H2><A NAME="making my() work on package variables">Making <A HREF="../../lib/Pod/perlfunc.html#item_my"><CODE>my()</CODE></A> work on ``package'' variables</A></H2>
<P>Being able to say my($Foo::Bar), something that sounds ludicrous and
the 5.6 pumpking has mocked.</P>
<P>
<H2><A NAME="or testing defined not truth">``or'' testing defined not truth</A></H2>
<P>We tell people that <CODE>||</CODE> can be used to give a default value to a
variable:</P>
<PRE>
$children = shift || 5; # default is 5 children</PRE>
<P>which is almost (but not):</P>
<PRE>
$children = shift;
$children = 5 unless $children;</PRE>
<P>but if the first argument was given and is ``0'', then it will be
considered false by <CODE>||</CODE> and <CODE>5</CODE> used instead. Really we want
an <CODE>||</CODE>-like operator that behaves like:</P>
<PRE>
$children = shift;
$children = 5 unless defined $children;</PRE>
<P>Namely, a <CODE>||</CODE> that tests defined-ness rather than truth. One was
discussed, and a patch submitted, but the objections were many. While
there were objections, many still feel the need. At least it was
decided that <CODE>??</CODE> is the best name for the operator.</P>
