Re: lispref structure really confused (was Re: [Bug: xemacs-beta tip] tables of contents at wrong end manual)

Thanks for looking at this! Samuel Bronson writes:  > Hmm, it looks like there are worse problems, at least in lispref: the  > sectioning hierarchy doesn't match the node next/previous/up links  > doesn't match the node menu structure.

There is Lisp code in a comment in either the XEmacs User Guide or the Lispref (or maybe both) that is useful for maintaining both menus and links.  > I'd like to straighten this out a bit; any hints as to how to tell  > which order/structure(s) to keep? Use your good taste as far as order goes.  If as far as you can tell it doesn't matter, see if the helper code will decide for you (IIRC it either constructs menu from the node graph or vice versa) and if not, flip a coin.

 > One other thing I've noticed: usually, when I try "C-h C-f", it says  > that whatever I was looking for is missing from the index, but when  > the .texi file has a perfectly-good looking ＠defun (or similar) in it.  > Am I wrong in thinking that ＠defun is supposed to put the function  > described into the function index, or is something just mysteriously  > broken? AFAIK the primitive ＠def* directives handle this, so, yes, it should update the index automatically. Sounds like possibly Makefile breakage to me.  I don't use C-h C-f except by accident (I generally work with the manual source 'cause there's always something I want to change ;-), so I haven't paid much attention to that.