Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Broken shortcut links for some built-in functions

by toolic (Bishop)
on Oct 24, 2009 at 18:06 UTC ( [id://803061]=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

We all know and love the shortcut for linking to the offcial Perl documentation website, using 'URL pseudo-schemas'. Refer to:

How do I link to the Perl documentation?
What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?

For example, to link to the docs for the built-in 'split' function:

[doc://split] works as intended ... split

I know of at least two functions which currently have broken links:

  • [doc://say] ... say
  • [doc://state] ... state
I get "Error 404" in my browser.

A workaround is to use 'General-Purpose Linking'. For example:

[href://http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/say.html|say] ... say

Update: ikegami notified me (via private /msg) of a shorter workaround

[http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/say.html|say] ... say

Obviously, that's a lot more typing (or mouse clicks), but it gets the job done. These are just 2 examples which surfaced within the last week or so. There may be more.

It would be great if fixing these broken links were added to the 'to do' list of the empowered Monks.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Broken shortcut links for some built-in functions
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 25, 2009 at 00:00 UTC
    It looks like the list of perl functions used for doc:// is from perl 5.8

      Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It pleases me to say that the state of our links is such that they no longer break for functions new in 5.10/12.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Re: Broken shortcut links for some built-in functions
by bart (Canon) on Mar 06, 2011 at 20:55 UTC
    It just shows that conflating "perldoc %s" with "perldoc -f %s" in "[doc://%s]" and depend on some magic list to separate the function names from the module names is a bad idea, in my opinion.

    For example: is [doc://open] short for open or for open? Both pages exist.

    This should have been two separate link types from the start.

    But: the damage is done. For backward compatibility the behavior of [doc://] will have to remain as is. Perhaps we could add 2, not 1, new link type? I propose "docf" (or "func") for functions, and "docm" for modules ([mod://] is taken and links to search.cpan.org)

      Pragmas are modules. [mod://open]open.

      That doesn't link to perldoc.perl.org, but at least it works.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://803061]
Front-paged by Arunbear
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-04-25 23:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found