Message-Id:	<199803162347.XAA21012@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
From:	George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:45:08 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Portability docs
Reply-to:	george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 15 Mar 98 at 15:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, George Foot wrote:
> 
> > @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>
> 
> This seems to be gross to type (even though `M-/' in Emacs should help a
> lot).  Be sure you indeed want such long directive names, before
> implementing. 

Sorry, I tend to do that.  Long names are less likely to clash with
any other macros used in the future.  If you'd prefer something 
shorter, it can easily be changed.

> One thing I'd suggest to try to ditch is the ...-cont and ..-break tags.  
> Can't the program decide on its own where one note ends and another 
> begins?

Of course it can.  I have a patch for that too now; take your pick.  
New format (if you like it):

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

The <note> on the same line as the `@port-note' is optional, so you 
can write:

:@port-note <target>
:<note>
:<continuation of note>
:
:<new paragraph in note>

which feels better to me.

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

- Raw text -