Re: breadcrumbs for Info . . . . . .

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> . I generally like the replacement of File: and Node: by
>   including that info in the breadcrumbs - bonne initiative.
>   On the other hand (some food for thought):

>   - The current node could be omitted from the crumbs, to save
>     space, since it is already present in (a) the mode-line and
>     (b) the node title.

I decided to keep the information that was there before.  I.e. the
"file" info (merged into the "Top" node), and the current node.

>   - If the file+top link is moved back to the header-line, more
>     space is saved. In that case, it should be made into a (top)
>     link. (I thought it already was a link, but I see now that
>     that is in my own code). It is the breadcrumbs line where
>     space is critical; it is likely to be longer than the
>     header-line. The file is also listed in the mode-line.

In my tests (and with my setup), the header-line already tends to
overflow more than the breadcrumbs, so I don't want to move more stuff
over there.

>  - Moving current and file+top to the header-line would probably
>    eliminate any need for the depth option (except to turn off).

I introduced the depth first and foremost to ensure termination.

> . When using ellipsis, I suggest dropping first the current
>   node name and the file+top - precisely the parts you keep.

I keep them precisely because they were there before.

> . The `>' appears even at the beginning: "> (dir)Top". That is

Yes, it seemed like a good idea.  I'd be happy to change it.

> . The doc string of `Info-breadcrumbs-depth' should explain
>   that it refers to the number of ancestor nodes, i.e., that it

The number of nodes actually displayed depends on too many things: to be
really precise, the docstring would need to be overly complex.  It's not
like people will get confused anyway: the user can try a value and then
increase/decrease it.

> . You might want to bind `Info-fontify-maximum-menu-size' to
>   nil, as I did, for the calls to `Info-goto-node'. That will
>   save useless extra fontification.

You misread the code.

> . So much for the time I spent shortening lines. You reverted
>   to the original lengths, which includes lines up to 137 chars
>   wide. No problem, but please don't bother to ask for that again.

Yes, I only asked you to shorten your own code, not the rest.


        Stefan