Am 12.09.2011 15:33, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:56PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
ok, but does that mean that issue 1135 can be closed?
As mentioned elsewhere, I replaced @findex by @funindex in
scm/document-identifiers.scm
but this seems to change nothing ...
That should make the functions appear in both
Appendix E. LilyPond command index
Appendix F. LilyPond command index
If that changes nothing, then specify *exactly* which index the
function does not appear in.
Ah, ok, I assumed they should apper in the internals index ...
They appear both in E and F - before the patch, they were listed in F only.
Is this ok? Then the attached patch is probably ready to push.
Regards,
Marc
Cheers,
- Graham
>From 853703d458fbb01ec4f8e57c2e3833414cfa80d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:39:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Issue 1135: changing @findex to @funindex in scm/document-identifiers.scm
---
scm/document-identifiers.scm | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scm/document-identifiers.scm b/scm/document-identifiers.scm
index 838de55..f83ba45 100644
--- a/scm/document-identifiers.scm
+++ b/scm/document-identifiers.scm
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
(zip arg-names type-names)))))
(format #f
"@item @code{~a}~a~a
-@findex ~a
+@funindex ~a
~a
"
name-sym (if (equal? "" signature-str) "" " - ") signature-str
--
1.7.0.4
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
