Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:59 +0300 (EET DST)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: fpclassify
In-Reply-To:	<200306211458.h5LEwSAG019208@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0306231430550.14217@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References:	<200306211458 DOT h5LEwSAG019208 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:

> Should macros have a @findex, @cindex, none or what? Or does it depend
> on what function the macro have? Like in this case it behaves as a
> function, hence a @findex?

Macros that behave like functions, variables, or data types should have
@findex, @vindex, or @tindex entries, respectively.  Other macros, like
the PRI* and SCN* families, don't really fit in any index predefined by
Texinfo; ideally we should define a new index for macros (@defindex ma)
and have all macros listed there (in addition to the other indices, when
appropriate).

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -