Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:59 +0300 (EET DST)
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: fpclassify
In-Reply-To: <200306211458.h5LEwSAG019208@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.51.0306231430550.14217@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <200306211458 DOT h5LEwSAG019208 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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, 21 Jun 2003 ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:

> Should macros have a @findex, @cindex, none or what? Or does it depend
> on what function the macro have? Like in this case it behaves as a
> function, hence a @findex?

Macros that behave like functions, variables, or data types should have
@findex, @vindex, or @tindex entries, respectively.  Other macros, like
the PRI* and SCN* families, don't really fit in any index predefined by
Texinfo; ideally we should define a new index for macros (@defindex ma)
and have all macros listed there (in addition to the other indices, when
appropriate).

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