Re: munge-texi replacement

[Rik]

On 04/20/2012 07:11 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 19-Apr-2012, Rik wrote:
>
> | I already have a Perl replacement for munge-texi if we want to go that
> | direction.
> | 
> | Advantages:
> |   -- C++ is not the place for text manipulation
> |   -- No need for compile rule in every *.txi -> *.texi transform
> |   -- 1/4 lines of code to maintain, 2X faster
> |       [maybe even faster used tied hash]
> | 
> | Disadvantages:
> |   -- Requires Perl on build system
> | 
> | On the other hand, we already require Perl for building anyways so perhaps
> | this isn't a big issue.
>
> OK, I remember now that you proposed this change earlier and I opposed
> it because of the Perl requirement.  But I suppose it would be OK and
> since it is related to rebuilding documentation, it should not be
> needed by someone building from a tarball.  So go ahead and check in
> your change.

I'm back from vacation.  I checked in the change for munge-texi here
(http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/f2ed09ae8d3f).  I'll work,
albeit slowly, on transitioning gethelp and then gendoc to a script
format.  In the end, the three changes should make it easier to accomplish
the original end goal of cross-compiling Octave.

--Rik