Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:45:03 +0200 (EET)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Add @tindex for types in docs [PATCH]
In-Reply-To:	<3E3FDCB5.D2875A7E@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0302051322280.1814@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References:	<E18fmrW-0000gG-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
	<Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 51 DOT 0302041153300 DOT 10610 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
	<3E3FDCB5 DOT D2875A7E AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:

> In most cases the libc docs have one definition of the structure. Then nodes
> refering to that structure link to the node with the definition. Maybe that
> should be the case here too.
>
> Note that struct definitions are duplicated in many places: struct stat,
> struct timeval, struct time, struct date are just a few that I remember.

Yes, I think that it's best not to have any duplicate definitions.

> Are you planning to do any more patches like your @findex one?

I'm planning to change mkdoc to check the .txh files much more strictly
than it does now, and then change the files so that mkdoc won't complain
about them.  By strict checking I mean that each node should have all
the usual subsections in proper order and properly formatted, unless
there's something to tell mkdoc that a node doesn't have a return value
(if it's describing a variable) or that a node is completely free text.
Is it OK to use @mkdoc for this kind of thing?

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -