Re: cvs: phpdoc /en/reference/misc/functions eval.xml

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 03:54, Damien Seguy wrote: > Le lundi, 9 jun 2003, à 15:31 America/Montreal, Philip Olson a écrit : > > > > > <function>return</function> is how it's done, just like > > <function>include</function>, <function>print</function>, etc. > Yet, return is not a function, unlike include or print. > > <literal> could get a link to the anchor in the doc to return. > same would apply to continue and break, while, for..... > > That is more consistent. > What do you think? > > Damien Seguy. I don't think that <function> is the perfect fit for return, but <literal> means a literal representation of something, and return doesn't really represent something else; it actually does something. So I think that <function> hits a bit closer to the mark. Just my $0.02 CDN. -- Torben Wilson <torben@php.net> +1.604.709.0506 http://www.thebuttlesschaps.com http://www.inflatableeye.com http://www.hybrid17.com http://www.themainonmain.com -----==== Boycott Starbucks! http://www.haidabuckscafe.com ====-----