Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Re: the c:func: stuff - >> >> Well, the right thing is making function + type names clearly discernable, and >> it just putting in the function name like that absolutely does not do the right >> thing in that respect. >> >> I feel strongly on this, as I've tried it both ways and it's a _really_ big >> difference in how readable the document is. >> >> I spent a lot of time trying to make it as readable as possible (given the >> complexity) so would really rather not do anything that would hurt that. >> > > Somebody told me that in _other_ .rst's, seemingly, it does figure out xxx() -> > function and highlights it like this. > > But for me, it does not... :) OK ... If you look at what's going on, some of the functions will be marked, others not. The difference is that there is no markup for functions where a cross-reference cannot be made (because they are undocumented). We could easily change the automarkup code to always do the markup; the problem with that (which is also a problem with the existing markup under Documentation/mm) is you'll have rendered text that looks like a cross-reference link, but which is not. We also lose a clue as to which functions are still in need of documentation. The right answer might be to mark them up differently, I guess. jon
