On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 00:08 +0200, Erwin Brandstetter wrote:
> Aloha!
>
> Repost, since the first attempt on 03.04.2013 14:31 was before I
> subsrcibed to pgsql-docs and doesn't seem to have arrived.
>
> As advised by Pavel here:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15731247/postgresql-function-
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maybe we could set things up so that there are actual files which are
programatically preprocessed to SGML to be included in the docs? That
way, the docs always reflect the actual file, which by itself is
compilable
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we could set things up so that there are actual files which are
> programatically preprocessed to SGML to be included in the docs? That
> way, the docs always reflect the actual file, which by itself is
> compilable. The SGML source would only co
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 16:11 schrieb Tom Lane:
> &, <, and > need to be hacked so that SGML doesn't barf on them.
> Unfortunately, all three symbols are a bit commonplace in C code.
I assume that someone who wants to try out the code would copy it from the
HTML, not out of the SGML source
Tom Lane escribió:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 02:39 schrieb Tom Lane:
> >> C code that's been hacked until it passes for SGML isn't compilable.
>
> > I don't understand this point. Why would SGML care what the C code looks
> > like?
>
> &,
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 02:39 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> C code that's been hacked until it passes for SGML isn't compilable.
> I don't understand this point. Why would SGML care what the C code looks
> like?
&, <, and > need to be hacked so that
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 02:39 schrieb Tom Lane:
> C code that's been hacked until it passes for SGML isn't compilable.
I don't understand this point. Why would SGML care what the C code looks
like?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Decibel! wrote:
>> Couldn't we come up with some method of specifying code examples in
>> the docs and then having the doc build process actually run those
>> examples and put that into the doc build?
> While that seems very tempting, I think you need
Decibel! wrote:
> Couldn't we come up with some method of specifying code examples in
> the docs and then having the doc build process actually run those
> examples and put that into the doc build?
While that seems very tempting, I think you need manual review to check
whether the examples make d
