Subject: RE: DocBook function synopsis From: "Frank A. Christoph" <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:54:50 +0900 |
>erm, inline functions are significant to anyone using an API. They are >unlinkable, and can create weirdness in an inheritence hierarchy. I >think it's worth letting an API reader know something is inline, >rather than tear their hair out. OK, I don't know what weirdness you're talking about, but I see your point about linking. >you might want to throw in "Evaluation (lazy|strict) strict" in case >you have someone who wants to docbook some haskell code. For that >matter (totally barging on in the subject here) does the current >function synopsis have elements to describe type variable paramteres >or pre/post conditions? To properly support Haskell or even ML, you would need to rethink the way you handle not only function synopses, but also types in general. And then there is the issue of polymorphism, Haskell-style classes, etc., etc. Believe me, I would be the first one to cheer for Haskell support since I use it all the time, but DocBook is biased towards C-style, imperative languages. And, no, as far as I know there is no support for pre/post conditions, though you can always cook up something yourself. As for type parameters: what are you on, baby? :) --FC DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: DocBook function synopsis, Graydon Hoare | Thread | testing dssslist; please disregard, Scott Bodarky |
Re: DocBook function synopsis, Mitch C. Amiano | Date | allowing CSS styling on most DocBoo, Fred Yankowski |
Month |