From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 889a550ca08: ; Fix Texinfo warnings Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 14:48:32 +0300 Message-ID: <834jigmeb3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <169796650463.2984.6470791064475342706@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20231022092145.0486AC09BDB@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <83mswaq5q6.fsf@gnu.org> <87fs218qk6.fsf@localhost> <83lebto6e5.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkcp8oai.fsf@localhost> <838r7to1mu.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8aw75cj.fsf@localhost> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35768"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arash@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 24 13:48:54 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qvFu2-00095u-22 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 13:48:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qvFtg-0003Nv-D5; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 07:48:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qvFtc-0003NO-0Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 07:48:30 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qvFtb-0006Uz-K8; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 07:48:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=bMZ2e/ViWrGa35fYiwoTgaHcKQ5Zy7qOby3yL6oCAIo=; b=di/E4DMfWv8O HPTlMkRL7WNN85AsAGlInuhw25gFNczYaZUhUlqPRwuTRCxOBHovRw1LLBQFFTmqe/0yrs3YD8NHV Ws0pm1N0B0m5yTDfIqhmhbHZCi/3IHbMFoQzNNZ6wYtKOwHvzD3/o4koI5lSRziC2crrFKtWsC1cv cze4o6X/xYk5mlIv8E5uHxbUI/s8ThU1CQbdTEFcI0QZ+ojUoVR6xEVF1BL0WwNd3pi1JUBnjV8L2 bcfWPEWZHMkh9ari1vB4ORXels70o4u2RuTADbAlxC4JnrUuc6CmMl5JXF9lXQb+ny/nmCtQI2Gbe xEmFGyqEOIdNKtMxO9eQ6A==; In-Reply-To: <87v8aw75cj.fsf@localhost> (message from Ihor Radchenko on Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:11:08 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:311779 Archived-At: > From: Ihor Radchenko > Cc: arash@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:11:08 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> I do not see any clear reason why one may not put @anchor at the same > >> line with @item. > > > > I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the > > warning is bogus and should not be emitted in this case? Or that the > > Texinfo manual should explain better why @anchor should not appear on > > an @item line? If so, please take this up with the Texinfo > > maintainers, and ask them either to change the code or to fix the > > manual. > > I was hoping that you know and can quickly explain the reason. I don't. In any case, you will be much better off talking to the Texinfo developers about these new warnings. > > Me, I would simply move the @anchor line before the @item, where it > > belongs. It will shut up the warning and also make the manual cleaner > > from the Texinfo POV. (Thet's what I did in other cases where this > > warning was emitted by makeinfo 7.1.) But that's me. > > Moving _before_ @item is not an option. For example, consider > > - This is a long list item, and we want to put an anchor <<>>, in the middle of the line. > > The anchor does not belong to item itself, it is linking to a specific > place in the text. IME, Texinfo doesn't support this usage. > >> In Org mode, we add @anchor at the same place where the corresponding > >> Org markup (<<>>) is placed. > > > > That's a mistake, IMO. @anchor is basically the same as @node. > > AFAIU, it is not. See the above example. Well, your example doesn't work in all cases, where's my usage does. But again, please talk to the Texinfo developers about this. > >> I guess we might try to put @anchor on a separate line just for the sake > >> of avoiding this warning, but I am not confident that it is always safe > >> and won't break Texinfo markup. > > > > It won't, since that's how @anchor is supposed to be used. > > Does it mean that something like > > @item This is > @anchor{my-anchor} > a single paragraph inside item. > > is always safe? I don't know, and IMO @anchor should be before the @item, not after it.