RE: breadcrumbs for Info . . . . . .

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

> > However, I don't think that the current breadcrumbs 
> > approach is a problem or that the other (TOC) approach
> > would be better. Why? Because most manuals are not
> > deep. I picked the deepest node I found in the Emacs manual 
> > (by looking at the TOC) as the example I sent. And I see
> > no performance problem with that depth.
> 
> When nodes are in different files, visiting all ancestor nodes means
> visiting several files that is slow on slow machines/connections.
> For instance, the first node in the file info/emacs-4 is:
> 
>   File: emacs,  Node: Fortran Indent,  Next: Fortran 
> Comments,  Prev: Fortran Motion,  Up: Fortran
> 
>   31.13.2 Fortran Indentation
> 
> So to display this node, it needs to open the file info/emacs-3 that
> contains its parent node Fortran, and the top file info/emacs-1.

Yes, I know that. But can you point to a particular node in a particular manual
that you find is too slow?

I checked (using `T') all of the manuals that come by default with Emacs on
Windows - I found no nodes deeper than 4. I didn't check each level 4 node in
each manual, but I checked several, and I see no performance problem. Perhaps
you can find a level 4 node whose levels 1-3 are in different subfiles, and you
can check whether it is too slow?

IOW, is this a real problem in practice or just a hypothetical problem?

> > We have only a certain number of possible heading levels, 
> > and it works fine for those, AFAICT.