Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/01/20/08:03:55
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:
> (a) It looks like you've run a script on the files. Some of the diffs are
> changes in the number of dashes, e.g.:
[snip]
> It looks like your script has added dashes in some cases. The dash changes
> aren't really relevant to the @[fv]index changes, are they? Is there any easy
> way for you to revert the dash changes, leaving just the @[fv]index changes?
No, they aren't relevant. I don't know if there's any easy way, but I'll
find some way... :-)
> (b) Some blank lines are also deleted. Why?
I think all these lines were between @node and @subheading Syntax lines;
I just replaced the empty line with the @findex line.
> (c) Some function syntax formats have changed, to remove spaces before the
> parentheses. E.g.: snprintf. These changes seem to be making the format of the
> syntax sections more consistent across the library documentation. I think
> these should be in a separate patch. They aren't relevant to the @[fv]index
> changes.
Yes, that true.
> (d) Some other lines seem to have unneeded changes in their whitespace. E.g.:
> the description of mprotect. They aren't relevant to the @[fv]index changes.
Yes.
> Doesn't libc.tex need modification, to have entries for the function, variable
> & concept indices?
It does.
> Perhaps makedoc should generate a warning, if a node doesn't have an
> @[fv]index statement?
Maybe, but ioctl currently has three nodes, and only one of these should
have @findex ioctl.
--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/
- Raw text -