Then explain why it works? Actually the former behaviour is what I'd expect.

In D13571#279453, @apol wrote:

Then explain why it works? Actually the former behaviour is what I'd expect.

The given example is just plain wrong. It does not work, it is just some false prosa.

The given example is just plain wrong. It does not work, it is just some false prosa.

Fair enough, yet the API user may want to be able to understand what's the logic behind it, so if it can be explained on the documentation that could be useful.

In D13571#279550, @apol wrote:

The given example is just plain wrong. It does not work, it is just some false prosa.

Fair enough, yet the API user may want to be able to understand what's the logic behind it, so if it can be explained on the documentation that could be useful.

What is "it"?

This patch does not change any behaviour, it just ensures the documentation matches reality.

In D13571#279554, @bruns wrote:

In D13571#279550, @apol wrote:

The given example is just plain wrong. It does not work, it is just some false prosa.

Fair enough, yet the API user may want to be able to understand what's the logic behind it, so if it can be explained on the documentation that could be useful.

What is "it"?

This patch does not change any behaviour, it just ensures the documentation matches reality.

Don't make me read the code. You are updating documentation, the documentation itself needs to offer such information.

In D13571#280135, @apol wrote:

In D13571#279554, @bruns wrote:

In D13571#279550, @apol wrote:

The given example is just plain wrong. It does not work, it is just some false prosa.

Fair enough, yet the API user may want to be able to understand what's the logic behind it, so if it can be explained on the documentation that could be useful.

What is "it"?

This patch does not change any behaviour, it just ensures the documentation matches reality.

Don't make me read the code. You are updating documentation, the documentation itself needs to offer such information.

I was referring to you vague formulation "understand what's the logic behind it". Apparently you need some clarification for "something". Why don't you tell what "something" is?

Instead of accepting a documentation *fix*, you are nitpicking about something, but you do not really tell what you don't like.

The example code neither compiles, nor does the output - after fixing the broken code - match the output from the documentation.

ping!