However, turns out that TWiki has no embedded documentation whatsoever and without it POD does not even pick up the method names.

Was there a decision to exclude documentation in the code or has TWiki just evolved this way?

Would it be a good idea to put some in? It would probably make the code more understandable and thus help the process of bringing in other developers.

-- MartinCleaver - 07 May 2003

There is also Pdoc http://pdoc.sourceforge.net/ - extension of POD in direction of javadoc. It allows to publish complete modules (code with colorized syntax) and docs as static HTML pages. You can see it in action at http://doc.bioperl.org/releases/bioperl-1.0.2/

Maybe better idea will be to add Twiki syntax here to already excellent and ready to use tool (which BTW looks/behaves like popular javadoc package) than start another perl niche player?

Another bonus, Pdoc can publish methods/code even if no POD docs is present.

-- PeterMasiar - 07 May 2003

Pdoc sounds useful, particularly the ability to publish some documentation info even without POD docs. Is there a Perl code cross-referencing tool, like Google:lxr+linux? That would be very handy.

-- RichardDonkin - 07 May 2003

That example is great! So much better than ctgas+vim+taglist-plugin.

Now if only it was editable and a step toward an IDE...

-- AntonAylward - 07 May 2003

looks like we are working towards this now

-- SvenDowideit - 24 Mar 2004