DOCBOOK: Re: funcdef/function/returnvalue

[Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>]

/ Trevor Jenkins <trevor.jenkins@suneidesis.com> was heard to say:
| In TDG the examples for funcdef are of this style:
| 
| <funcdef>int <function>sample</function></funcdef>
| 
| However, the content model for function allows the returnvalue element.
| This implies that one could markup that same function as:
| 
| <funcdef><function><returnvalue>int</returnvalue> sample</function></funcdef>
| 
| Now the question is whether that's sensible. (I'd argue that returntype is
| a better name for an element in this context.)
| 
| How would others markup such function definitions? Staying with TDG or
| going with the alternative.

Returnvalue is a relatively new addition. I think it makes sense to
markup the return type.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | The First Amendment is often
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | inconvenient. But that is besides
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | the point. Inconvenience does not
                                   | absolve the government of its
                                   | obligation to tolerate
                                   | speech.--Justice Anthony Kennedy,
                                   | in 91-155