[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Info enhancements
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Info enhancements |
Date: |
08 Dec 2003 08:56:58 +0200 |
> From: Juri Linkov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:00:53 +0200
>
> address@hidden (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.
I think that's precisely the problem that Karl was talking about.
(IMHO, having several index entries with the same name is not a good
idea, anyway. It is much better to disambiguate them by adding a bit
of context information to each entry. For example, instead of having
two entries that say "@cindex foo", do this:
@cindex foo, used together with @code{bar}
@cindex foo, when before @code{baz}
Not only does this help to find the required info faster when looking
at the index of a printed copy, it also allows the user to decide
which completion to select when she types "i foo TAB", whereas given
the two completions "foo<1>" and "foo<2>" such a decision is
impossible. But I digress...)
- Re: Info enhancements, (continued)
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06
Re: Info enhancements, Karl Berry, 2003/12/06