bug in mangling example?

[Alex Samuel]

The 13th mangling example, 

    _Z3fooIiPFidEiEv

is supposed to encode

    void foo<int,int(*)(double),int>()

The standard states,

    "Empty parameter lists, whether declared as () or conventionally
    as (void), are encoded with a void parameter specifier (v)."

so I believe the mangled form should have an extra `v' at the end.
The first encodes its return type (it being a template function), and
the second encodes its empty parameter list.

BTW is there a plan at some point to number sections and subsections
of the ABI standard?

Regards,
Alex Samuel