Menu
▾
▴
#421 PG Suggestion: get rid of enumarations in the source files
closed
None
5 - default
2024-01-15
2022-09-27
No
It is obviously cumbersome to re-numerate everything when adding new chapters "in between" - especially seen in PROCEDURE DIVISION -> GnuCOBOL Statements.
Texinfo is able to do the enumarations as necessary, which can be seen from the texinfo sources and the resulting PDF of the GnuCOBOL manual.
Currently the PG uses newsubsection which is a macro (from Macros.texi) which explicit uses unnumberedsubsec (similar for other items) and then specifies the numbers manually - dropping all numbers and moving from unnumberedsubsec to subsection in Macros.texi should produce the expected output.
Maybe there's a reason for the current manual approach, but I can't see it and didn't found a note in Macros.texi about that either.
As this will involve a lot of changes and my experience of this tool is limited for every change I make there is a risk that it will fail to build the document/s.
I just do not have time time to experiment with it but by all means do so your self - just let me know when done and committed so I can see how it is done in practice.
What ever happens though - needs to continue the chapter and sub section numbering as in a as already used as possible.
Yes, I really do not like this tool what so ever as every time a change is made user's have to consider if they really wish to reprint the manual/s.
As against just the changed pages and swap them out assuming user has inserted the documents into a ring binder.
I have not found a word processor that does this any way but there were available as companies like ICT, ICL and IBM used to provide such updates to manuals on a regular basis from the 70 - 90+ as it cuts down on paper wastage.
In any event it does not take much to make a mistake that the texi system objects to with a poor messaging about the issue and that's putting it mildly !
I have imported the resultant .pdf file into a LibreOffice document but it creates new page and para styles for every single page created and it is a very large document in Open Source Format (also used with modern versions of MS Word).
There again the texi system is extremely old and is in need of a total replacement tool.
Last edit: Simon Sobisch 2023-04-20
@Simon;
Being under the weather - to put it mildly, I have had a total re-read of your reply, looked at the Macros.txt and looked at the gc manual sources and have had to come to the conclusion that making changes to the menu options in each of the different included file will involve a lot of effort - assuming I understand what is needed - which I do not.
Is there a quick way of sorting out these section numbering issues without hurting my head ?
Vincent
Reading again what I've suggested that doesn't sound like a big effort, so I'm willing to volunteer: do that, then check the the PDF "looks reasonable", then check in.
What do you think?
Yes please - it is possible I am just missing it but now not so sure, yes divering somewhat, or am I , oh what ever.
Last edit: Simon Sobisch 2023-04-20
@Simon, have you managed to fix up this issue for the PG manual.
I have another request in response to another bug reported regarding COLOUR in that has compiler fixes been applied and if so to what versions of the compiler, as none of this has shown up as fixes that I have seen.
I am not a mind reader !
I'll work on the docs after next week (I'm not near a PC for this week) and should be able to check this issue then, too.
@lefessan - could you take that over? This should also ease follow-up changes.
I am going to give it a try.
By the way, for other users of these guides, they are available in Sphinx HTML here:
https://get-superbol.com/gnucobol/gnucobpg/
Please advise if you do an update AND commit it - don't forget to update
the file
updates.texi with basic details of changes.
On 13/01/2024 08:44, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
As I do not have access to the Features requests area I am responding here :
Can some one kindly repair this, as I for one use the numbering in the
table of content areas.
As it is it looks some what messy.
As this text tool is supposed to be "the best thing since sliced bread"
I would "assume" that it is fixable.
I have to admit I am some what lacking in skills in using the tex system
but have been using word processors since 1977 or so excluding the one's
used with mainframes and that goes back to the 60's.
Wordstar rings a bell to name one of many over the years.
Vincent
On 15/01/2024 16:27, Simon Sobisch wrote:
Related
Commit: [r5179]
Wish List:
#421Done in [r5179] by @lefessan; the only downside is that the numbers are not part of the PDF's layout table (but correctly numbered and inserted in the table-of-content and pages.
Related
Commit: [r5179]