From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from scc-mailout-kit-01.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout-kit-01.scc.kit.edu [129.13.231.81])
	by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 3dba0dc8
	for <discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv>;
	Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:47:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de ([172.22.63.82] helo=hekate.usta.de)
	by scc-mailout-kit-01.scc.kit.edu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1i7kEP-0000qO-7q; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:47:10 +0200
Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3])
	by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1i7kEN-0002Wx-Nm; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:47:07 +0200
Received: from athene.usta.de ([172.24.96.10])
	by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1i7kEM-0003UN-9F; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:47:06 +0200
Received: from localhost (athene.usta.de [local])
	by athene.usta.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id c1c6d5d5;
	Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:47:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:47:07 +0200
From: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
To: Yuri Pankov <yuripv@yuripv.net>
Cc: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: "WARNING: parenthesis in function name" correctness
Message-ID: <20190910174707.GD6626@athene.usta.de>
References: <421eeed3-8da5-b852-4581-1058de113831@yuripv.net>
X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss
Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <421eeed3-8da5-b852-4581-1058de113831@yuripv.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)

Hi Yuri,

Yuri Pankov wrote on Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0300:

> I'm looking into fixing sbuf.9 which currently has somewhat unreadable:
> 
> .Ft typedef\ int ( sbuf_drain_func ) ( void\ *arg, const\ char\ *data, 
> int\ len ) ;

Indeed, that is horrible and should be fixed.

> ...into somewhat nicer:
> 
> .Ft typedef int
> .Fo (sbuf_drain_func)
> .Fa "void *arg"
> .Fa "const char *data"
> .Fa "int len"
> .Fc
> 
> ...but that gives me a:
> 
> mandoc: share/man/man9/sbuf.9:69:5: WARNING: parenthesis in function 
> name: (sbuf_drain_func)
> 
> Looking at the code, parenthesis are only allowed in the following form:
> 
> .Ft (*func_ptr)

I think you mean .Fo/.Fn, not .Ft, right?

> ...while here we don't have a "*" -- it's the way it's typedef'ed in the 
> source, and I want to follow it, so I wonder if that check/warning is 
> really useful.

If i understand the C standard correctly (otherwise, please somebody
correct me!), we have:

  int (f)()    --  function returning int
  int (*fp)()  --  pointer to function returning int

In many situations, both can be used interchangeably, consider for
example C89 3.2.2.1: "A function designator is an expression that
has function type.  Except when it is the operand of the sizeof
operator or the unary & operator, a function designator with type
``function returning type'' is converted to an expression that has
type ``pointer to function returning type.''"

Then again, it seems for sizeof(), it may make a difference whether
a type is a function type or a function pointer type, and maybe there
are also other situations where that matters.

So i suspect you are right there are legitimate reasons for making
the difference in the documentation, too,
and saying ".Fo (sbuf_drain_func)" looks reasonable.
Do others agree?

I plan to suppress the warning for ".Fo (f)" just like for ".Fo (*f)"
in the future.  The likely typo that should be warned about
is ".Fo f()", and that warning will still work.

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv