X-Authentication-Warning:	kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:28:20 -0600
From:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: djasm documentation patch 2/4
Message-ID:	<20010113112820.D6836@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<20010112143602 DOT B6051 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <200101122202 DOT RAA15516 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <2950-Sat13Jan2001094758+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<2950-Sat13Jan2001094758+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 09:47:59AM +0200
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

-: > > + @node djasm, , update, Top
-: > > + @include djasm.txi
-: > 
-: > Would it be better to put the @node inside djasm.txi?  I can see
-: > benefits for doing it either way.
-: 
-: I think having @node inside djasm.txi is indeed better: it makes it
-: easier to change the document's structure, remove this part or move it
-: around, etc.

I wrote djasm.txi as a stand-alone document.  To make it work with the
other djgpp utility documentation I did this:

- added the @node line to utils.tex (as is done for the other utilities)

- added these commands

@chapter djasm
@lowersections

as the first two lines of djasm.txi

- `@ignored' the header material in djasm.txi.

This allows me to @include `djasm.txi' in utils.txi with minimal changes
to either document (don't break the pattern of utils.txi, and keep the
original stand-alone djasm.txi document intact).

- Raw text -