On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> The connection between the SmPL specification "f(...)@e" and the desired return type > >> was not obvious for me so far. > > > > The nearest enclosing expression of the ) is the whole function call itself. > > Thanks for your explanation. > > Now I guess that the enclosing context is a particular function implementation > where specific calls are performed, isn't it? No idea what yu mean by this. Function calls are usually found within function definitions. But it could be in the definition of a macro as well. It doesn't matter, as long as the type is available. > > > > e will thus match the entire expression. e is declared to have type t > > Did you omit this detail in your suggestion a moment ago? I don't thik so. I said t e; where t could be whatever typep or set of types one wants. > > > (where t is in practice signed int or whatever one wants to check for). > > How do you think about reuse another data type enumeration there? No idea what you mean by this. > > How would you like to manage names for functions which are not defined > in the current source file? Why does it matter in this case? julia > Regards, > Markus > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
