> From: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:25:39 +0100 > Cc: bug-texinfo@gnu.org > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 04:16:23PM -0700, Raymond Toy wrote: > > In > > https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/_0040lisp.html, > > it says |@lisp| is the same as |@examle lisp|. In the generated HTML file, > > visually, they produce the same thing. However, the html code is quite > > different. > > > > So for this test: > > > > |@lisp (member :internal :external :inherited nil) @end lisp @example lisp > > @example lisp (defstruct ice-cream (flavor :vanilla :type (member :vanilla > > :chocolate :strawberry))) @end example | > > (I've lost newlines in this example.) > > > the generated html is different: > > > > |</p><div class="example lisp"> <pre class="lisp-preformatted">(member > > :internal :external :inherited nil) </pre></div> </p><div class="example > > user-lisp"> <pre class="example-preformatted">(defstruct ice-cream (flavor > > :vanilla :type (member :vanilla :chocolate :strawberry))) </pre></div> | > > > > The div class is different and so is the pre class. Should they be the same? > > No they shouldn't - the "lisp" class is to indicate that the <div> was output > from a @lisp block rather than an @example block. Hopefully this is not > too confusing.
This makes sense, but maybe we should amend the text in the manual not to be in such a glaring contradiction with the reality? E.g., let's say that the @lisp produces very similar output as "@example lisp", but the HTML output still reflects the different sources. Or something to that effect, perhaps in a @footnote.
