Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <396A3661.A0034A22@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:47:29 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
        DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: mkdoc patch, take 2
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000710093330 DOT 5255B-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:
> > 1. When producing @multitable in texinfo, is there an easy way to make
> > a column consume the rest of the table? The problem here is that we
> > have a 2-column table. The left-hand column's width can be calculated
> > easily, but the right column should use the remaining space. I have a
> > hack based on an assumption of 80-columns width.
> 
> I guess I don't understand what does ``the rest of the table'' mean in
> the first sentence above.

Ah, I meant the "rest of the table row". I would like the left-hand column
to the right size for its contents, while the right-hand column should
occupy the rest of the table row. I'd also rather not hard-code the
page-width in columns - IMNSHO texinfo should know how wide its pages are.

> Is the problem that you don't know the actual line length produced by
> `makeinfo'?

No - I don't want to make any line-length assumptions. I suppose I am
assuming that the page is wider than, say, 20 characters, so that the
left-hand column can be completely accommodated and that there is a
reasonable amount of room for the right-hand column.

> > 2. With the default qualifiers for the ansi target, C89 compatibility
> > is set to yes, but C99 is set to unknown. Should the unknown part be
> > displayed in the portability?
> 
> Why should C99 default to unknown?  Why not to yes?

My feeling was that this may not be a good idea until the whole standard
had been checked. However, it seems the only area where this may be true
is with floating point, where the behaviour has changed. I guess it's a
safe assumption that the rest of the standard hasn't changed.

Anyway, I think it might be a good idea to use a script to update all the
docs, as DJ suggested.

> > 2. Make @port-note be a multi-line @ command
[snip]
> > @port-note ansi {This uses one line.}
> 
> The first possibility is IMHO better: it doesn't violate Texinfo's
> rule that lone unescaped braces are not allowed.

Oops, I guess the following would be better for a more
texinfo-built-in-command-like operation:

@port-note{ansi, This uses one lines.}

but then we have to convert all the sources. If we're using a script to
add C99 to compatibility list, then this could be done at the same time.

Thanks, bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
[ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]