Re: [aj@xxxxxxxxxx: RE: [AD] [AL] docs, return values?]

[Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz <gradha@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 02:26:16PM +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2002-11-11, Grzegorz <gradha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You can grab him now. Patch attached, includes documentation,
> > a goto (they are so few of them that they deserve the attention),
> 
> Good work.  But don't you think it's weird to have the "See also"
> boxes inside the "Return value" boxes?

Yes, I was waiting for suggestions to put function definition inside
boxes too, and then maybe the whole page, and... bad recursive joke.

> (Text browsers ought to support CSS too.)

I would still enable "use my own colors" :-)

> > Feel free to ignore the CSS part when applying.
> 
> 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.

Of course, I was showing off to let somebody else with better taste
improve the outlook or have other ideas.