From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200304210840.KAA05189@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: @var, -, @code?
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:40:38 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <9791-Mon21Apr2003064303+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Apr 21, 2003 06:43:03 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

Eli said:
> > 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 ...

But that says (C-code): "endp = <something>;" not "*endp =
<something>;".


Right,

					MartinS