Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:58:53 +0000 (GMT) From: George Foot To: Nate Eldredge cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Portability docs In-Reply-To: <199803120334.TAA03747@adit.ap.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk 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 @port-note-cont @port-note-break @port-note-cont @port-note ... etc, which could be output as: @enumerate @item @item @end enumerate giving something like (excusing any mistakes in the texinfo above): 1. 2. 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