On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 08:30:06PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> I used a loop like this:
>
> # Find the first subordinate section, which should appear first
> # in the menu.
> my $first_child = $section_children->[0];
> while (!defined($first_child->{'associated_node'})
>
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 10:29:00AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 01:06:29AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:18:05PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > All these nodes (in the Sphinx output) have explicit pointers on the
> > > node lines, just like the a
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 01:06:29AM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:18:05PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > All these nodes (in the Sphinx output) have explicit pointers on the
> > node lines, just like the affected part of the libc manual.
> >
> > So I expect we will have to t
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:18:05PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> All these nodes (in the Sphinx output) have explicit pointers on the
> node lines, just like the affected part of the libc manual.
>
> So I expect we will have to take some account of node pointers
> when generating these warnings. (W
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:20:05AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > I do not really understand the comment explaining why Getopt and argp
> > > start at the @section level, I do not get what "enough room for their
> > > internal hierarchy" means, so it is not clear to me why the Glibc people
> > >
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > It's because there are three menu entries for the same node. The
> > first menu entry is expected because that node is subordinate in
> > the sectioning structure (a @subsection underneath a @section),
> > but the other two are une
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:06:46 +0100
> Cc: pertu...@free.fr, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 07:50:47AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Gavin Smith
> > > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 21:45:03 +0100
> > >
> > > And now I have warnings with this manual (pa
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 07:44:09AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > The only irregularities I could find in this manual are multiple menu
> > entries
> > for the same node (in "Help-Inv" and "Help-M").
>
> That manual's structure is not a tree.
It is pretty close to being a tree, as far as I coul
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 07:50:47AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Gavin Smith
> > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 21:45:03 +0100
> >
> > And now I have warnings with this manual (patch at the end of this mail):
> >
> > $ TEXINFO_XS_STRUCTURE=0 ../tta/perl/texi2any.pl info.texi
> > info.texi:461: w
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 21:45:03 +0100
>
> And now I have warnings with this manual (patch at the end of this mail):
>
> $ TEXINFO_XS_STRUCTURE=0 ../tta/perl/texi2any.pl info.texi
> info.texi:461: warning: unexpected node `Help-]' in menu
> info.texi:462: warning: unexpected
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 20:47:31 +0100
> Cc: pertu...@free.fr, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:28:44PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > As an example of a manual whose structure is not a tree, but is
> > well-thought out, see info.texi. I'd expect to see su
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 02:15:05AM +0200, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> > Patrice: the
> > "$menu_node_relations->{'associated_section'}->{'section_directions'}->{'next'}->{'associated_node'}->{'element'}"
> > stuff is very verbose. All this is doing is finding the next
> > node based on sectioning.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 09:45:03PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> And now I have warnings with this manual (patch at the end of this mail):
>
> $ TEXINFO_XS_STRUCTURE=0 ../tta/perl/texi2any.pl info.texi
> info.texi:461: warning: unexpected node `Help-]' in menu
> info.texi:462: warning: unexpected no
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 08:47:33PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > As an example of a manual whose structure is not a tree, but is
> > well-thought out, see info.texi. I'd expect to see such warnings
> > there as well (unless the few explicit node pointers it has will avoid
> > that), although the s
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:28:44PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > So while the Info output is basically fine, output that doesn't use
> > menus, including the default HTML output and output with TeX, has
> > problems. Hence I believe we should keep the new warnings with
> > CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRU
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:46:08 +0100
> Cc: pertu...@free.fr, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> > I'm not sure I understand what is the bad structure. If you allude to
> > the lack of link back to Getopt's node, then that's expected with such
> > a structure. Users could perhaps cli
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 02:13:39PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> The automatic calculation of Prev/Next/Up node pointers assume a
> strict tree-like structure of a manual, and it also assumes that the
> @menu item for a node appears in its parent node. If these conditions
> are not fulfilled, then
> From: Gavin Smith
> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:53:42 +0100
>
> I've found an issue with the libc.texi manual (in the version I downloaded
> in the past). Warnings are reported that weren't previously:
>
> $ ../tta/perl/texi2any.pl ../../libc/libc.texi
> startup.texi:1: warning: node `Program B
On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 10:15:23PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 10:59:07PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 06:53:42PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > @c Getopt and argp start at the @section level so that there's
> > > @c enough room for their internal
On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 10:59:07PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 06:53:42PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > @c Getopt and argp start at the @section level so that there's
> > @c enough room for their internal hierarchy (mostly a problem with
> > @c argp). -Miles
> >
>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 06:53:42PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> @c Getopt and argp start at the @section level so that there's
> @c enough room for their internal hierarchy (mostly a problem with
> @c argp). -Miles
>
> As the comment says, "Getopt" is a @section although its superior node
>
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > In the next two or three days, I'll try to do the corresponding change
> > in the C code. Then I'll look at splitting out the structure-checking
> > code into its own function...
>
> I've done this. I noticed that complete_node_tre
22 matches
Mail list logo
