>>How about something a little more explicit than XXX, like TODO or FIXME?
> Some syntax-highlighting editors highlight "XXX". Let's use that feature.
Which ones? emacs doesn't seem to do it by default.
> And how can you get more explicit than XXX, anyway?
Funny, but I still think TODO or FIXME makes more sense.
>>>In function definitions, the name starts in column 0, with the
>>>return type on the previous line
>>Eww. Why do we want this again?
> 1) Dicky C compilers
Which ones?
> 2) Ease of parsing. (By our own tools that is, not by cc)
int
foo()
is easier than
int foo() ?
By the tinyest amount. Is that really worth it for what is probably
harder to human read.
>>> /*=for api apiname entityname[,entityname..] flags ....(TBC)....
>>> comments....
>>> */
>>>
>>This is perl5ish syntax. Has there been thought about a different syntax here?
>>
>
> I'd prefer to go the other way, and just have POD everywhere. At the moment,
> I'm spec'ing out the API for various functions by embedding POD in C comments;
> I can then just run perldoc on a plain old C file, and I've got an API document.
Sure, POD everywhere, but lets make it POD6 with a little less
whitespace and the other improvments that might come down the pipe.
Limiting ourselves to POD5 will cause uglyness.
-R
