Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3E293BB0.D9EFA8FF@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:34:08 +0000
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Adding index entries to library docs
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 51 DOT 0301171344540 DOT 17854 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Esa A E Peuha wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Making the whole patch available for download somewhere might also be a
> > good idea.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/english/djgpp/indexdiff.txt

That looks pretty good. I think this will help users a lot.

But I have a couple of small nits to pick:

(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.:

Index: src/libc/ansi/locale/mblen.txh
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/djgpp/djgpp/src/libc/ansi/locale/mblen.txh,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -U1 -r1.2 mblen.txh
--- src/libc/ansi/locale/mblen.txh	27 Sep 1998 15:20:32 -0000	1.2
+++ src/libc/ansi/locale/mblen.txh	17 Jan 2003 11:38:41 -0000
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
-@c ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+@c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @node mblen, locale
+@findex mblen
 @subheading Syntax

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?

(b) Some blank lines are also deleted. Why?

(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.

(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.

Doesn't libc.tex need modification, to have entries for the function, variable
& concept indices?

Perhaps makedoc should generate a warning, if a node doesn't have an
@[fv]index statement?

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]