| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Code examples |
| Date: | 2007-09-04 14:36:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20070904143640.GF6466@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> 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
> > like?
>
> &, <, and > need to be hacked so that SGML doesn't barf on them.
> Unfortunately, all three symbols are a bit commonplace in C code.
Maybe we could set things up so that there are actual files which are
programatically preprocessed to SGML to be included in the docs? That
way, the docs always reflect the actual file, which by itself is
compilable. The SGML source would only contain something like
<include file="examples/foo.c" /> or something like that.
Is that feasible?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"No necesitamos banderas
No reconocemos fronteras" (Jorge González)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-09-04 15:04:08 | Re: Code examples |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-04 14:11:30 | Re: Code examples |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2007-09-04 14:42:25 | Re: Has anyone tried out the PL/pgSQL debugger? |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2007-09-04 14:33:05 | Re: Has anyone tried out the PL/pgSQL debugger? |