Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3E3FDCB5.D2875A7E@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:31:01 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Add @tindex for types in docs [PATCH]
References:	<E18fmrW-0000gG-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 51 DOT 0302041153300 DOT 10610 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Esa A E Peuha wrote:
[snip]
> >   @node save_npx, debugging
> >   @findex save_npx
> > + @tindex NPXREG
> > + @tindex NPX
> >   @subheading Syntax
> >
> >   @example
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to add a node for the variable npx?  Now its
> description is needlessly duplicated in docs of save_npx and load_npx.

In most cases the libc docs have one definition of the structure. Then nodes
refering to that structure link to the node with the definition. Maybe that
should be the case here too.

Note that struct definitions are duplicated in many places: struct stat,
struct timeval, struct time, struct date are just a few that I remember.

[snip]
> Even though the variable a_tss isn't described anywhere else, I still
> think it should have a node of its own.  (Or, at least, it should have
> a @vindex entry here.)

Yes, you are right. I was doing a patch for types. Maybe I will do a patch for
variables next.

Are you planning to do any more patches like your @findex one?

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -