Re: c2man comment rejection

[James Hawkins]

On 11/3/05, Markus Amsler  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