From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 531 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2002 14:16:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 483 invoked by uid 71); 10 Mar 2002 14:16:03 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020310141603.480.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: ada/5907: The Ada front end lacks a proper manual Reply-To: Florian Weimer X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR ada/5907; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Florian Weimer To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: , , Subject: Re: ada/5907: The Ada front end lacks a proper manual Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:14:48 +0100 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> The VMS version requires substantial postprocessing (words are >> replaced globally, file names are rewritten). It is not possible to >> express this in Texinfo. > > Why not? If the standard manual needs the word "foo", where the VMS > manual needs "bar", why shouldn't a macro @foo{} (with different > definitions in the two cases) work? We would need a couple of hundered macros, I think. For example, the preprocessing rewrites all strings like "hello.adb" to "HELLO.ADB", "hello.o" to "HELLO.OBJ", and so on. If you had to write "@helloadb{}" and "@helloo{}", reading the sources would become rather difficult. > I don't think however the VMS way of building the manual would be of > relevance to the FSF sources - I think having just one version, covering > all systems, is generally preferred for GNU manuals. (If it were done > simply by a VMS Texinfo conditional, it might still make sense not to > define that conditional when building the GNU manual on VMS.) Of course, the preprocessed manual could be committed to the CVS. But I doubt that this is a reasonable approach. >> bit clumsy, and the TeX implementation of Texinfo doesn't handle >> extensive use of conditional processing and macros very well. On the > > What are the problems? Macro expansion in index entries causes problems, and so do some kind of conditionals (but these problems are more related to makeinfo, IIRC).