Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:47:59 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<2950-Sat13Jan2001094758+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
In-reply-to:	<200101122202.RAA15516@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:02:55 -0500)
Subject:	Re: djasm documentation patch 2/4
References:	<20010112143602 DOT B6051 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <200101122202 DOT RAA15516 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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

> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:02:55 -0500
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > + * djasm::       The DJGPP 16-bit assembler (limited functionality).
> 
> *I* wouldn't say it was "limited".
> 
> > + 
> > + @c -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > + @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.

- Raw text -