On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 12:08:54AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > + If a function requires no arguments, use <void/> in stead of
> > > + <parameter>void</parameter>, since the former renders to " ()",
> > > + and not " (void)", the former is of course more correct.
> > > +
> > > + If a function has an undefined return-value, use 'void'.
> >
> > <parameter>void</parameter> is the correct syntax, because <void/> looks
> > very ugly in the renderd output.
>
> I just threw away a mail about that we should change the
> function (void)
> prototype to
> function ()
> , but then I saw that it was already okay with <void/>.
<void/> is wrong.
> (void) to indicate no-args is really ugly, IMO, and wrong too. void as
> return-value is okay, but to indicate no-args?? it is common to have a list
> of arguments, there are no arguments -> empty list.
No, it means there is no argument type or return value.
> Anyway, _IF_ (void) would be the correct rendering, change the
> html-common.dsl to output " (void)" in stead of " ()". That's the
> appropriate way, this <parameter>void</parameter> thing is an ugly hack
> (IMHO uglier than Jani's/Tom's rand() hack).
Examples? I will look for it tomorrow.
> >
> > > + 14. In a prototype, if there are multiple - really distinct -
> > > + possibilities, simply make it two! See math.xml:min() for an
> example.
> >
> > mixed?
>
> See min() for example, mixed is not appropriate there.
Simply make it two is IMHO nonsense. But we can agree if there is a "!"
separator between the arguments, with no spaces between the separator.
-Egon
--
All known books about PHP and related books: http://php.net/books.php
Concert Band of the University of Hohenheim: http://www.concert-band.de/
First and second bestselling book in German: http://www.php-buch.de/
