Re: Re: <void> rendering, multi-proto's

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 12:34:33AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > > <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 > > I know the DocBook probably better then you. I'm sorry, I was only trying to support my view with external arguments, I was _not_ implying that you didn't know the DocBook. (I admit - I needed to look it up :-) But why is <void/> wrong then? > > > > See min() for example, mixed is not appropriate there. > > min()s is correct, exept the missing brackets for the optional arguments. Which are optional? I looked into the source, and either 1 argument (array) is accepted, or 2+ arguments, which are supposed to be numbers. IMHO, this is currently reflected well. > > > 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. > > I render or validate the PHP docs daily. So I don't see your problem. I must have been unclear in my wordings, I wanted to say: don't you think that the min() syntax is currently better reflected in the docs than it was before? > Multiple prototypes are posible with Hartmut's patch. And doesn't the fact that multiple prototypes are supported (they are now - I don't know which patch you're talking about?), mean that they should be used when appropriate? > -Egon Jeroen