[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Info enhancements

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Info enhancements
Date: 08 Dec 2003 08:56:58 +0200

> From: Juri Linkov <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:00:53 +0200
> address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:
> > Also, the question of conflicts would arise.  If there is both an index
> > entry and a node with the same name, what to do?  Or two index entries
> > with the same name?
> There is exactly the same problem with anchors: no anchors with the
> same name are allowed within one Info file.  So we can't make anchors
> for two index entries with the same name.
> The problem with anchors is even worse: both a node and an anchor with
> the same name are not allowed in one Info file.

I think that's precisely the problem that Karl was talking about.

(IMHO, having several index entries with the same name is not a good
idea, anyway.  It is much better to disambiguate them by adding a bit
of context information to each entry.  For example, instead of having
two entries that say "@cindex foo", do this:

  @cindex foo, used together with @code{bar}
  @cindex foo, when before @code{baz}

Not only does this help to find the required info faster when looking
at the index of a printed copy, it also allows the user to decide
which completion to select when she types "i foo TAB", whereas given
the two completions "foo<1>" and "foo<2>" such a decision is
impossible.  But I digress...)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]