[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lilypond-devel
Subject:    Re: Doc fixes for \applyOutput ... ok to push?
From:       Graham Percival <graham () percival-music ! ca>
Date:       2010-09-26 19:05:27
Message-ID: AANLkTi=sz68fAHYkgkWiH1kM_R2Czvg9dEGyD8tseMnm () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Mark Polesky <markpolesky@yahoo.com> wrote=
:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> The code is likely a one-liner if done correctly, but I
>> already spent 10 minutes digging through the details.
>>
>> So I'll turn to wait mode right now.

ok.

> This work may have already been done by the texinfo
> developers; I told them about it some months ago. =A0IIRC, the @w
> trick works for info and pdf, and the html version is fixed
> in the texinfo sources, but I don't think they've released a
> stable version that includes that change, and I didn't have
> time to go learn CVS.

Yes, but I'd rather not have @w{} everywhere in our code, partly due
to the "semantic vs. ouput commands" thing, but mostly due to the
annoyance+maintenance issue.  I'm interested in a general "treat all
@code{} as if it were wrapped in a @w{}" solution.

It seems like we're still waiting for a stable release of texinfo (not
that we can really complain about time between stable releases) before
being able to really clean up a lot of our doc generation stuff.

Cheers,
- Graham


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]