From: Juergen W. <wie...@fr...> - 2005-04-01 17:33:47
|
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 23:15, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > That doesn't seem to address the issue of which terminals should be > documented in the texinfo documentation. The philosophy used to be > that online help documents only what the accompanying gnuplot binary > actually supports, but printable docs should document everything. > So far, gnuplot.texi seems to have followed the "include all" strategy, > albeit with some quirks. I really should have read docs/README. > You should compile the new doc2tdc.c with -DALL_TERM_DOC, I guess. Hmm, ... actually I used to compile it with -DALL_TERM_DOC, this got lost while rewriting the Makefile stuff. :-( But the dependencies were there! ;-) > > I did a quick diff on the resulting gnuplot.texi and could find two > > major differences: The sequence of the terminal nodes has changed and > > the cross reference detection. > > Erm... the cross reference detection ... did what? Uups. It changed its behaviour. The the strings `windows`, `aqua`, `epslatex`, `gif`, `ggi`, `pdf`, `jpeg`, `fig`, ... are now detected as cross references, `postscript` is no more. There may be quite a lot of reasons for this. The node naming and cross referencing code is quite sensible to minor changes in gnuplot.doc. AFAICS, the new gnuplot.texi is better than the old one. The latter had some doubled terminal entrys, some surplus quotes (") at the end of terminal entrys, ... Some problems with the naming of the nodes still remain. I'm wondering if there could be a nicer way to decide which nodes get trailing underscores to make their names unique. > > I don't have too much experience with (e)lisp other than this, so it > > would be a good idea to have this patch reviewed. Is anyone in > > contact with the original author of doc2texi.el? > > His mail address mentioned inside doc2texi.el should still work, I guess. I'll contact him. Juergen |