Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 02:39 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> C code that's been hacked until it passes for SGML isn't compilable.
> I don't understand this point. Why would SGML care what the C code looks
&, <, and > need to be hacked so that SGML doesn't barf on them.
Unfortunately, all three symbols are a bit commonplace in C code.
Now admittedly this can be fixed with moderately simple
search-and-replaces, but it's still another obstacle in the path of
someone who actually wishes to use the code for its intended purpose,
or even someone who would like to find out if the examples aren't
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-09-04 14:36:40|
|Subject: Re: Code examples|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-09-04 13:53:01|
|Subject: Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers |
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ||Date: 2007-09-04 14:26:56|
|Subject: Re: Has anyone tried out the PL/pgSQL debugger?|
|Previous:||From: korry.douglas||Date: 2007-09-04 14:07:40|
|Subject: Has anyone tried out the PL/pgSQL debugger?|