Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:58:53 +0000 (GMT)
From:	George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To:	Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Portability docs
In-Reply-To:	<199803120334.TAA03747@adit.ap.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.980312214959.10182D-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the only other thing that needs to be done before work
> can start is the port-note continuation feature. It might be better if all
> notes were not merged, since it might not make sense to merge notes about
> (say) SysV and BSD. Are you still around, George?

Just about; I've been rather busy over the past week or so.  I was going
to wait for some agreement on what this feature should do before making a
real implementation.  Before the disagreement came I had implemented a
system for it which allowed several paragraphs in each note; IIRC it works
like this:

@port-note <target> <note>
@port-note-cont <continuation of note>
@port-note-break
@port-note-cont <new paragraph in note>
@port-note <another target> <another note>

... etc, which could be output as:

@enumerate
@item
<note>
<continuation of note>

<new paragraph in note>
@item
<another note>
@end enumerate

giving something like (excusing any mistakes in the texinfo above):

     1. <note> <continuation of note>

        <new paragraph in note>

     2. <another note>


I still personally think this is reasonable; it allows longer notes to be
written if necessary, and allows paragraph breaks in notes, without
encouraging either in general.  I don't think we should over-restrict this
system and then find out that it needs changing when we've already done
half of the functions. 

-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk

ko tavla fo la lojban

- Raw text -