Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Functions like php.net

[Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>]

Norman Walsh wrote:
> 
> / Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com> was heard to say:
> | On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:31:22AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> |
> | > / sanger@math.muni.cz (Michal Sanger) was heard to say:
> | > | In PHP semantic I have declaration:
> | > | string MyFunction(string param1, string param2[, int number]);
> | [...]
> | > There's a switch in the stylesheets to select between K&amp;R style
> | > and ANSI style function synopses. If you turn that switch to 'ansi', I
> | > think you'll get something closer to what you want.
> |
> | As well as the K&R/ANSI formatting, there is the other issue of
> | optional parameters like '[, int number]'.  As far as I can tell there
> | isn't any good way to mark that up currently.
> 
> Yeah, that seems to be the case. I wonder which makes more sense:
> 
> 1. Allow <optional> somehow in the funcprototype markup, or
> 2. Add an attribute like choice to paramdef (similar to arg and group).

I think that PHP folks customized DocBook using first approach. All XML
sources and customized stylesheets are accessible via CVS
(http://cvs.php.net), so everyone can have a look at it.

				Jirka

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek  	                     
  e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz
  http://www.kosek.cz