RE: breadcrumbs for Info . . . . . .

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Attached.
> 
> I installed a reworked version of this.

Thanks. However, what you installed is quite different (and there was no
discussion of the differences).

Anyway, here is some feedback:

. 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.

  - 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.

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

. When using ellipsis, I suggest dropping first the current
  node name and the file+top - precisely the parts you keep.
  This information is redundant (mode-line, title), and there
  is no action (link) associated with the current node. We have
  commands to go one level up (`u') and to the top (`t'). It is
  the intermediate levels that are most important to show - to
  (a) indicate hierarchical position and (b) provide links.

. The `>' appears even at the beginning: "> (dir)Top". That is
  unconventional and unclear to users, besides wasting a little
  space. Please remove the initial `>', to clearly indicate
  that the top node is the starting point of the chain. On the
  other hand, if you remove the top node to the header-line,
  then an initial `>' probably helps (for the same reason).

. The doc string of `Info-breadcrumbs-depth' should explain
  that it refers to the number of ancestor nodes, i.e., that it
  does not include the current node (so it is not the length of
  the breadcrumbs chain). It should also indicate which nodes
  are not displayed if too deep, and it should say that they
  are replaced by ellipsis.

. However, the depth value is in fact inconsistent. 1 means
  show one breadcrumbs of length 2 (including current), but
  0 means show breadcrumbs of length zero (i.e., don't show,
  but use File: and Node: instead). If the inconsistency is
  retained, then the doc string needs to explain it. It would
  be simplest to include the current node in the depth
  (assuming it will be part of the crumbs). In that case,
  either treat a value of 1 the same as 0, and mention that, or
  let 1 show just the current node.

. 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.

. 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.