Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:03:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender: peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Adding index entries to library docs
In-Reply-To: <3E293BB0.D9EFA8FF@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.51.0301201436140.27624@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 51 DOT 0301171344540 DOT 17854 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
 <3E293BB0 DOT D9EFA8FF AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk

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/