[vsipl++] [patch] Binary and ternary elementwise functions

[Stefan Seefeld]

Jules Bergmann wrote:
> Mike LeBlanc wrote:
>> It looks good, except ...
>>
>> Should all those <literal> phrases become, say, <code>?
> 
> Hard to say, strictly speaking they're not intended to be valid code.
> 
> For example, in describing the 'pow' function:
> 
>     <literal>Z(i) = pow(A(i) ** B(i))</literal>
> 
> C++ doesn't have a power operator '**'.
> 
> If docbook had a math mode ... but I digress.  Perhaps 
> <treatthisasliteralbutitreallyshouldbemath>  :)
> 
> Stefan, should these be <code>?

See my other reply for an issue with <code> vs. DB 4.2.

Other than that, I agree <code> may be the wrong semantics, so <literal> 
is the most generic / valid element to use. Let's just make sure it all 
renders the way we want. (I noticed some places where a function 
synopsis wasn't rendered the same as elsewhere, i.e. monotype on gray 
background; I'll have to find it again and see what is causing it...)

Thanks,
		Stefan

-- 
Stefan Seefeld
CodeSourcery
stefan at codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x718