This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: Functions like php.net
From: "Jirka Kosek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Norman Walsh wrote:
> > / Tim Waugh <email@example.com> was heard to say:
> > | On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:31:22AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> > |
> > | > / firstname.lastname@example.org (Michal Sanger) was heard to say:
> > | > | In PHP semantic I have declaration:
> > | > | string MyFunction(string param1, string param2[, int
> > | [...]
> > | > There's a switch in the stylesheets to select between
> > | > and ANSI style function synopses. If you turn that switch to
> > | > think you'll get something closer to what you want.
> > |
> > | As well as the K&R/ANSI formatting, there is the other issue
> > | optional parameters like '[, int number]'. As far as I can
> > | isn't any good way to mark that up currently.
> > Yeah, that seems to be the case. I wonder which makes more
> > 1. Allow <optional> somehow in the funcprototype markup, or
> > 2. Add an attribute like choice to paramdef (similar to arg and
> I think that PHP folks customized DocBook using first approach.
> sources and customized stylesheets are accessible via CVS
> (http://cvs.php.net), so everyone can have a look at it.
We have customized the stylesheets. You can see all documents and
source code in CVS.
PS: If someone is interested, I´m looking forward for other Open
Source Products which can be presented at our next LinuxTag early
July next year in Karlsruhe, Germany. There is no fee to get a