On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 co
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2007 16:11 schrieb Tom Lane:
> &, <, and > need to be hacked so that SGML doesn't barf on them.
> Unfortunately, all three symbols are a bit commonplace in C code.
I assume that someone who wants to try out the code would copy it from the
HTML, not out of the SGML source
Tom Lane escribió:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>
> &,
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---
