Re: Cleanup list of patches and bug reports on sf.net

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

Petr Mikulik wrote:
>>>>And isn't the bug report #963176, "wish: only create docs for available
>>>>terminals", solved?
>>>
>>>Not that I know of.
>>
>>I think the discussion was somehow good. In all platform-independent
>>formats, all terminals should be described. In the online form (via typing
>>help in gnuplot), either only installed ones should be described (which is
>>the case, I think) or not installed terminals should be described but
>>marked as not installed. But the bug report #963176 requested to not
>>describe uninstalled terminals at all, if I remember correctly. And then,
>>it is not unsolved.
> 
> 
> Currently, "set term" lists all available terminals, while gnuplot docs
> describes docs for all terminals. 

Only for some select values of what "docs" you may be speaking of.  You 
won't see help for the X11, PM, or aquaterm drivers in the Windows version.

The scheme is supposed to be: docs for all terminals *only* in the 
platform-independent versions of the docs (essentially the printable 
ones, and everything derived from gnuplot.texi).  The online help of
any given version will not contain documentation on terminal drivers not
present in that version.

The only other option I can see would be to have an #ifdef inside the
documentation section of the relevant terminal drivers that switches 
between the actual documentation and " Sorry, this terminal is not 
present in your version of gnuplot" line, then build even
the online versions using allterm.h instead of term.h.  This would 
generate online docs with the complete set of nodes, but some of them
would just contain this "Sorry" notice.