Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:41:41 +0200 (EET) From: Esa A E Peuha 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: <3E43C077.485354B9@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <3E3FDCB5 DOT D2875A7E AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <2561-Wed05Feb2003174006+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E428516 DOT 6E9BF039 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E43C077 DOT 485354B9 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 Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Richard Dawe wrote: > Esa A E Peuha wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Richard Dawe wrote: > > > > > Another solution to problem (a) is to get mkdoc to do the hard work. mkdoc > > > could generate a file containing all the -I options. > > > > Why not simply have mkdoc do the inclusion itself? [snip] > It just seems like overkill to have mkdoc do all this stuff, when texinfo > already has @include. Overkill it may be, but I really think that mkdoc would be more complicated if it had to output another file to pass to texinfo, compared to the case where mkdoc puts everything it processes into a single file. > It sounds like you want mkdoc to become a much more > feature-full pre-processor. Yes, that's more or less right. (Though I think I'll finish the stack-checking thing first.) > If that's the case, why don't we split mkdoc into > two: a program to find all .txh and some m4 macros to do the pre-processing? If that were feasible, we could just use findutils to find the files. :-) -- Esa Peuha student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/