[PATCH] fix gtk-doc code documentation

[David Zeuthen]

On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 17:12 +0100, Danny Kukawka wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2007 20:54, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 22:45 +0100, Danny Kukawka wrote:
> [...]
> > > -static enum
> > > +static
> > >  rule_type get_rule_type (const char *str)
> >
> > I guess we should return 'int' here (and other places) - omitting the
> > return type for a C function seems wrong. 
> 
> Do you mean change from:
> 
>      static rule_type get_rule_type (const char *str) {...}
> 
> to ?:
> 
>      static int get_rule_type (const char *str) {...}
> 
> I don't see why we shouldn't use rule_type as return value atm. It's a type 
> like int or enum. What make the difference? Both works for me and IMO with 
> rule_type its more clear what the function returns.

Oh, sorry, I was confused by

 static
 match_type get_match_type(const char *str)

because normally I have the return value on a separate line, e.g.

 static match_type
 foo (void)

instead of 

 static
 match_type foo (void)

So I read it as

 static
 foo (void)

So I guess you can strike that comment. Just goes to show that
consistent coding style is important but that's another thing :-)

      David