From: Ralf Hartmann <Ralf.Hartmann@dlr.de>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:42:43 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Fix subsections in class documentation.
X-Git-Tag: v8.0.0~19218
X-Git-Url: https://gitweb.dealii.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=37f270129ec48c62348b9865d343b572d9b85452;p=dealii.git

Fix subsections in class documentation.


git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@4573 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d
---

diff --git a/deal.II/deal.II/include/fe/fe_base.h b/deal.II/deal.II/include/fe/fe_base.h
index 3e7fbe1998..0625d97883 100644
--- a/deal.II/deal.II/include/fe/fe_base.h
+++ b/deal.II/deal.II/include/fe/fe_base.h
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ class FiniteElementData
  * transfer, respectively.
  *
  *
- * @section{Support points}
+ * @sect3{Support points}
  *
  * Since a @ref{FiniteElement} does not have information on the actual
  * grid cell, it can only provide support points on the unit
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ class FiniteElementData
  * If the mapping of all support points is needed, the first variant should
  * be preferred for efficiency.
  *
- * \subsection{Finite elements in one dimension}
+ * @sect3{Finite elements in one dimension}
  *
  * Finite elements in one dimension need only set the @p{restriction}
  * and @p{prolongation} matrices. The constructor of this class in one
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ class FiniteElementData
  * dimension zero. Changing this behaviour in derived classes is
  * generally not a reasonable idea and you risk getting into trouble.
  * 
- * \subsection{Finite elements in two dimensions}
+ * @sect3{Finite elements in two dimensions}
  * 
  * In addition to the fields already present in 1D, a constraint
  * matrix is needed, if the finite element has node values located on
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ class FiniteElementData
  * constrained. Only one level of indirection is allowed. It is not known
  * at the time of this writing whether this is a constraint itself.
  *
- * \subsection{Finite elements in three dimensions}
+ * @sect3{Finite elements in three dimensions}
  *
  * For the interface constraints, almost the same holds as for the 2D case.
  * The numbering for the indices $m$ on the mother face is obvious and keeps