Hi.
> > I think that not removing the last end of line of raw blocks would
> > probably be better, but some manuals may expect the end of line to be
> > removed. So, there is an issue of backward compatibility here.
>
> Seen in the sources of the gawk manual:
>
> @ignore
> Some comments on the la
Hi.
Just to confirm that using the current texinfo.tex everything is fine
again. Much thanks for the help.
Arnold
On 6 October 2015 at 22:48, Karl Berry wrote:
> unless there's an argument
> for backwards compatibility.
>
> Obviously any change will break backwards compatibility and existing
> manuals that made their hacks to deal with the existing behavior will,
> most likely, fail. But it seems lik
unless there's an argument
for backwards compatibility.
Obviously any change will break backwards compatibility and existing
manuals that made their hacks to deal with the existing behavior will,
most likely, fail. But it seems like you've already changed newline
behavior in other cases,
On 5 October 2015 at 22:12, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Inline commands are more natural and were indeed added for that kind of
> cases. But prior from inline commands, the only way to add inline raw
> text was with the block commands such as @html, and to leave the
> possibility to have a space or no
On 6 October 2015 at 03:43, Quinn Grier wrote:
> In this case, maybe it's best to just document this behavior in the
> manual. For what it's worth, I ran into this when playing with some
> formatting and was surprised to find some words adjoined in the HTML
> output. This was inconsistent with the
