From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 889a550ca08: ; Fix Texinfo warnings Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:11:08 +0000 Message-ID: <87v8aw75cj.fsf@localhost> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11983"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arash@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 24 11:09:48 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 1qvDQ3-0002vh-Kw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:09:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qvDPq-0003yi-4E; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 05:09:34 -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 1qvDPm-0003xv-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 05:09:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qvDPi-0001hl-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 05:09:30 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A30C4240103 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:09:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1698138564; bh=SB2DU3e/Js0vvdB3L7m42yWX9zAXMZlb60qlpnhJeT4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=hF8wA/Atio4I8nojl8XL5gAfY62wz/83VfN+nwdVavnj8YqO7h3MYn/45Y1v8UUT4 EFnGIVk25E4vj6zABw2YaAx0j/m/T0qkqcwK+zQYBqIvGJ9VdNQVzsIrbNlDzlIoZ6 JdK21NI8f//loFhBgLb4dH2BotglZaDwcUNw4flNN9yQzoU7dSxutUoEjAUGqjZWmp iAnWz1lPGdRvRtcsCQdlJp8CrG6+MlC7z2IZoMHTvKQqhCTX9zzpjkxzIXah7o5AAx ZsS4aXp+P3+l3LBcFZIOK2mQiXT03J2Id1+/RkK36ADNowSxmQA68Ri6Pnc553nbVr XsHvodk9OUOOQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4SF5pr1CGsz6txG; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:09:24 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <838r7to1mu.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:311762 Archived-At: 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. > 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. >> 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. >> 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? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at