From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: info Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:59:23 -0600 (CST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200302020459.WAA13892@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044161928 5363 80.91.224.249 (2 Feb 2003 04:58:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 04:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18fCDP-0001ON-00 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 05:58:47 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18fCKM-0004rx-00 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 06:05:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18fCEe-0000tL-06 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 00:00:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18fCEI-0000E0-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:59:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18fCDb-0007Jc-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:59:05 -0500 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18fCDL-0006JL-00; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:58:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19126; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:58:38 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA13892; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:59:23 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:11:19 -0500) Original-cc: eliz@is.elta.co.il Original-cc: kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:11282 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11282 Richard Stallman wrote: Any of these three might be good. Then I propose to go for solution 1. That would be the same as the stand-alone behavior (as Eli proposed earlier), up to the error message. It would only select a menu item if point is on the same line as the menu item. If point is not on such a line and not on a cross-reference, it would print the error message: "Point not on reference and no menu item on this line" (or similar), making it completely clear that just being on a continuation line is not considered sufficient. I believe the current stand-alone error message is unclear: "No cross references in this node." I could implement the above if one wanted me to do that. (I guess that the stand-alone version is too different from the Emacs version to just copy the code up to the error message, or not? Even the names of the functions seem completely different. Adapting the current Emacs function seems relatively straightforward.) Another idea is that any blank line ends the menu item. That would do the right thing in the examples you showed me, and it may well be that there are no blank lines in the middle of single menu items. That is essentially the algorithm Kai proposed. As mentioned, I indeed know of no examples where this malfunctions. However, Eli seems to feel very uncomfortable about the possibility of there actually being such examples. I would not be surprised either. If any file uses an indentation style that defeats this, then things could get very bad within that file. In terms of implementation, it is just a few more lines of code than the first solution, so that is not the problem. Sincerely, Luc.