Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:29:44 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@FreeBSD.org>, Mike Pritchard <mpp@FreeBSD.org>, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Please review: latest mdoc(7) fixes from CSRG Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104080220480.65588-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010407153431.A65093@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > I am about to bring in the latest CSRG revisions to -mdoc. > The only reason I am asking for a review here is that the > .Fn (and friends) macros were modified by CSRG to assert a > final semicolon (`;') after a function declaration in the > SYNOPSIS section. Does "assert" mean that they add this semicolon or check for it? From your later mail, I think it means that they add it. > If you have any ideas of why this should not be imported, > let me know now (I know some manpages abuse the .Fn macro > for cpp(1) macros declarations, but they basically need > this final `;' too). I'm not sure about that. The semicolon is a syntax error for a few (broken) declaration-like macros e.g., SYSINIT(). I think the change for actual functions is no worse than (ab)using .Fn for prototypes generally. If we ever have special markup for prototypes, it would be even more correct for it to add the semicolon than for .Fn. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0104080220480.65588-100000>