Improvement, but still doesn't feel right to me?
<funcsynopsis>
<funcprototype>
<funcdef><function>adler32</function></funcdef>
<paramdef><parameter>OldAdler</parameter></paramdef>
<paramdef><parameter>Data</parameter></paramdef>
</funcprototype>
<funcsynopsisinfo>
<returnvalue> int() </returnvalue>
<type>OldAdler = int()</type>
<type>Data = iodata()</type>
<remark>Continue computing the adler32 checksum by combining
the previous checksum, OldAdler, with the checksum of
Data .</remark>
<code>
X = <function>adler32</function>(Data1),
Y = <function>adler32</function>(X,Data2).
<function></function>
</code>
<phrase></phrase>
</funcsynopsisinfo>
</funcsynopsis>
<!--
<name>adler32(OldAdler, Data) -> int()</name>
<fsummary>Compute adler32 checksum</fsummary>
<type>
<v>OldAdler = int()</v>
<v>Data = iodata()</v>
</type>
<desc>
<para>Continue computing the adler32 checksum by combining
the previous checksum, <code>OldAdler</code>, with the checksum of
<code>Data</code>.</para>
<para>The following code:</para>
<code>
X = adler32(Data1),
Y = adler32(X,Data2).
</code>
<para>- would assign the same value to <code>Y</code> as this
would:</para>
<code>
Y = adler32([Data1,Data2]).
</code>
</desc>
</func>
-->
Ignoring names (I made them up)
This kind of model seems to be needed.
I'm documenting a function,
I want to present the model,
describe the parameter data types
describe the function
and present an example.
That seems inline with docbook goals?
<functionInformation>
<name>
<summary>
<parameter>
<name> </
<datatype> </
<parameter>
...
</
<functDescription>
<para></
<para></
</
<example>
<code>
</
</
</functionInformation>
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
