lispref structure really confused (was Re: [Bug: xemacs-beta tip] tables of contents at wrong end manual)
naesten at gmail.com
Fri Oct 8 11:58:48 EDT 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> 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.
I'm having trouble finding this code. Perhaps there should be
directions for finding it in man/README?
> 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
> > 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.
Too bad there's no way for the Info mode to take you to the source for
the text near point.
Hmm. Looking closer, I see that lispref has one index for everything.
Is it possible that this somehow confuses the `Info-index' code?
More information about the XEmacs-Beta