From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Info enhancements Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:00:53 +0200 Organization: JURTA Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87r7zgqtxm.fsf@mail.jurta.org> References: <87isku20s6.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <200312061449.hB6Enaa16133@f7.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1070827695 17869 80.91.224.253 (7 Dec 2003 20:08:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 21:08:09 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AT5CL-00026i-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:08:09 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AT5CL-0000U5-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:08:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AT69G-0007Oi-FY for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AT68U-0007I7-9J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:08:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AT67y-0006Jo-F4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:08:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [64.246.52.22] (helo=ns5.tangramltd.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AT67t-0006Al-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:37 -0500 Original-Received: from 80-235-42-190-dsl.mus.estpak.ee ([80.235.42.190] helo=mail.jurta.org) by ns5.tangramltd.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5AK-00070K-W9; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:06:05 +0200 Original-To: karl@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) In-Reply-To: <200312061449.hB6Enaa16133@f7.net> (Karl Berry's message of "Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:49:36 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns5.tangramltd.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnu.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jurta.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:18521 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18521 karl@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) writes: > Also, the question of conflicts would arise. If there is both an index > entry and a node with the same name, what to do? Or two index entries > with the same name? There is exactly the same problem with anchors: no anchors with the same name are allowed within one Info file. So we can't make anchors for two index entries with the same name. The problem with anchors is even worse: both a node and an anchor with the same name are not allowed in one Info file. If there are a node and an anchor with the same name then after following a reference with their name the stand-alone reader always prefers a node, whereas Emacs reader prefers an anchor. There is the same problem with a completion list of all node names and anchor names (called by the command `g'). Even if we make a separate command to select an anchor this will break older Info readers that don't allow to separately select nodes and anchors. So older readers will fail on Info files with anchors and nodes with the same name. > Making them take a sixth argument or something does not sound all that > appealing, although maybe it is the cleanest thing. Making a sixth argument is a good idea and deserves to be elaborated further. -- http://www.jurta.org/emacs/