Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2003 06:43:03 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
Message-Id:	<9791-Mon21Apr2003064303+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200304201729.h3KHTs0o008206@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject:	Re: @var, -, @code?
References:	<200304201729 DOT h3KHTs0o008206 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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

> From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:29:54 +0200 (CEST)
> > 
> > No.  It should be @code{*@var{endp}}.  But since that's a mouthfull,
> > I'd suggest to rephrase like this:
> > 
> >     If @var{endp} is not a null pointer, it points to the
> >     first unconverted ...
> 
> Alas that'd be "If @var{endp} is not a null pointer, what it points to
> will be set to the first unconverted ...", which also is a mouthfull.

Rephrase again is my recommendation:

  If @var{endp} is not a null pointer, it will be set to point
  to the first unconverted ...

> If somebody isn't very opposed, I'll go with the first version,
> @code{*@var{endp}}.

I don't mind too much, but I think we should make the text more clear
as suggested above.

- Raw text -