From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200304201729.h3KHTs0o008206@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: @var, -, @code?
In-Reply-To: <5137-Sun20Apr2003202104+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> "from Eli Zaretskii
 at Apr 20, 2003 08:21:05 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:29:54 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
> > 
> > Is "If @var{endp} ..., @code{*endp} ..." right?
> 
> 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.

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


Right,

						MartinS