SuperPython
(0.91)
This was definitely worth a chuckle.
I don't think it should be under Acme:: – that would spoil the point. Misleading POD? No, it isn't. Intentionally incomplete POD? Of course – it *has* to be.
It gets a 3 from me because it certainly doesn't deserve 5 stars as it's not useful for any practical purpose. OTOH, I don't think it's actually bad for this to be on CPAN, so I'm not rating it 1 or 2 either.
Aristotle Pagaltzis - 2004-02-14T14:06:26
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
0 out of 1 found this review helpful:
SuperPython
(0.91)
SuperPython
(0.91)
The documentation is just fine, thanks very much.
By the way, I am not one of Damian's aliases.
Mark Jason Dominus - 2003-12-07T05:32:28
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
SuperPython
(0.91)
I'm sorry some people don't get the joke. Reading the source and the example .spy files helps put it all into perspective. Go Damian.
chicks - 2003-12-02T11:10:42
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
1 out of 1 found this review helpful:
SuperPython
(0.91)
SuperPython
(0.91)
Hilarious! The point of not putting it under the Acme:: namespace should be obvious. When reading the PODs for the first time, you really think this is serious. The namespace Acme::SuperPython would spoil this.
Mark, thanks for a great parody!
Tassilo v. Parseval - 2003-12-02T02:21:57
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
SuperPython
(0.91)
Agree. The POD documentation is misleading.
David Manura - 2003-12-01T18:33:28
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
SuperPython
(0.91)
Belongs under Acme::.
Intended only to be humorous. But it takes a while to figure that out, which is good under Acme, but unfortunate in a top-level package.
mitchellncharity - 2003-09-01T13:49:01
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
