> > 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.
Why? See the docbook documentation:
> Void -- An empty element in a function synopsis indicating that the
function in question takes no arguments
> > (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.
"_it_ means", to what are you referring? I don't get this.
If you mean (void), I disagree, as I argumented in that paragraph.
> > 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.
This rates quite high on the WTF-scale... Have you seen how it is rendered
anyway? There are two possible syntaxes for that min() function, and they
should both be named. It isn't for nothing that there are multiple
prototypes allowed in XML, within one funcsynopsis. Again, see the
docbook-docs.
! is not intuitive, this way it's clear immediately.
>
> -Egon
Jeroen
