| Re: [aj@xxxxxxxxxx: RE: [AD] [AL] docs, return values?] |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:54:31AM +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > Can it be left out? The bold "Return value" marker is already
> > > easy for the eye to find. There's no need to make the return
> > > value paragraph look like it is more important than the rest
> > > of the description.
>
> I mean the "See also" stuff shouldn't be in the same "tags" as the
> "Return value" stuff (sorry, my HTML terminology is non-existant).
> Would this require an end-of-retval marker?
So you like that green stuff? :-) I understood that it was enough
to use bold letters for the return section.
No, there's no need for an end-of-retval marker as long as
the return section is/are the last paragraph(s) of the function
description (something I consider to be logical in documentation).
While makehtml does a two pass scan on the output, the second pass
is to find out in which file each function/variable is, the xref
section is generated in the first pass by buffering the xrefs in
memory, then, when a new function definition is found, or the page
is going to end, they are flushed.
The patch puts the </div> after the flushed xref block, but you
can put it before avoiding the nested graphic look. Erasing that
silly div css section is also a good option.