Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:18:24 +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: Add @tindex for types in docs [PATCH]
In-Reply-To: <E18fmrW-0000gG-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.51.0302041153300.10610@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <E18fmrW-0000gG-00 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 Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:

> Index: src/libc/debug.txh
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/djgpp/djgpp/src/libc/debug.txh,v
> retrieving revision 1.7
> diff -p -c -3 -r1.7 debug.txh
> *** src/libc/debug.txh  29 Jan 2003 12:52:02 -0000      1.7
> --- src/libc/debug.txh  3 Feb 2003 20:04:43 -0000
> *************** The argument @var{start_state} is usuall
> *** 39,44 ****
> --- 39,46 ----
>   @c ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   @node save_npx, debugging
>   @findex save_npx
> + @tindex NPXREG
> + @tindex NPX
>   @subheading Syntax
>
>   @example

Wouldn't it be better to add a node for the variable npx?  Now its
description is needlessly duplicated in docs of save_npx and load_npx.

> *************** and provided that a call to @code{save_n
> *** 165,170 ****
> --- 167,174 ----
>   @c ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   @node run_child, debugging
>   @findex run_child
> + @tindex struct TSS
> + @tindex TSS
>
>   @subheading Syntax
>

Even though the variable a_tss isn't described anywhere else, I still
think it should have a node of its own.  (Or, at least, it should have
a @vindex entry here.)

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/