c2man comment rejection

James Hawkins truiken at gmail.com
Thu Nov 3 12:44:08 CST 2005

On 11/3/05, Markus Amsler <markus.amsler at oribi.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I identified 80 function comments, that have a description and a PARAMS
> section, but no RETURNS section. IMHO it would generate in most cases
> acceptable documentation, but gets rejected because of the missing
> RETURNS section.
> 2 possible fixes:
>  - patch c2man so it accepts also PARAMS sections
>    pro: small change, more html documented functions in general
>    con: some functions have unsuitable comments
>  - add RETURNS section to comments
>    pro: cleaner documentation
>    con: more changes, a lot of "RETURNS TRUE on success FALSE
> otherwise"- style comments.
> Which way to go?

My personal choice would be to add the RETURNS TRUE/FALSE where needed
to be consistent with the rest of the comments.  It will be cleaner,
and a few no-op changes isn't so bad of a con.

James Hawkins

More information about the wine-devel mailing list