Re: [Tcllib-devel] Has anyone noticed the keywords being output during tcllib doc generation?

[Andreas D. <an...@dr...>]

Dear all,
The man files had some wrapper procedures around the section and 
subsection commands that allowed structuring visually the different 
sections and sub sections in the documentation source files. These 
wrapper procedures have still contained by mistake some debugging code.
The wrapper procedures have now be replaced by the original section and 
sub section commands which eliminates the output of the mentioned 
strange text. The updated documentation source files have been 
transferred into to the repository.
Best regards,
Andreas

On 17.05.10 17:10, Andreas Kupries wrote:
> Larry W. Virden wrote:
>    
>> I was just processing the latest tcllib cvs head from the activestate
>> ftp site. I noticed the following:
>>
>> followed by more words
>>
>> I took a look at the file in the module/tepam directory and I'm
>> perplexed at why these are going to stdout (or perhaps it is stderr).
>> I don't know all the formatting tags, so I may be missing something.
>>      
> The tepam documentation files contains some 'macro definitions' based on Tcl's
> 'proc' command, and their bodies contain 'puts'. During their execution as part
> of the documentation processing they print to stdout.
>
> Strictly speaking 'proc' is not part of the doctools language. It works only
> because the doctools commands are interpreted as Tcl commands, run through a
> safe interp. Meaning that you can use most Tcl commands, not just the doctools
> markup commands, in your docs. This is not documented however, and an internal
> 'feature' of the implementation. In other words, this can go away any time.
>
> Fact of the matter, for doctools::idx and doctools::toc this has gone away in
> the 2.x code I have written. For doctools itself it still works just because I
> haven't done its v2 yet.
>    
>> Is this output expected from doctools? If not, does someone see what is
>>      
> No.
>
>    
>> missing? If it is expected, I'm puzzled why these terms are being output
>> and other terms, which appear to be coded similarly in the same file,
>> are not being output.
>>
>> Thanks for insights.
>>      
>