Re: Minor documentation layout flaws
percy tiglao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Type (backtrace) to get more information or (debug) to enter the debugger. This doesn't go off the page; but it nearly does. It wraps in info too. But this is obviously the output of guile. It's free-form though, not something you have to type, or should expect to see exactly, so it doesn't matter too much. Should I just add a newline between the and debugger? Sounds fine, I made that change. I also fixed two spots in the format function showing 1x2 3x4 5x6, which I think I introduced. ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Re: Minor documentation layout flaws
Hi, percy tiglao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, on page 40 (the pg 40 in the ps output... maybe different) you've got the line: Type (backtrace) to get more information or (debug) to enter the debugger. This doesn't go off the page; but it nearly does. But this is obviously the output of guile. I'm not sure this will help, but using [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the Texinfo source rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED]' (if this is not already the case) might be helpful. Thanks, Ludovic. ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Re: Minor documentation layout flaws
Okay; I'm going along just fine in removing these minor errors in documentation (a line break here; shorten some words over there...) But there is one issue that keeps comming up that I just don't know how to handle: What should I do about ouput? For example, on page 40 (the pg 40 in the ps output... maybe different) you've got the line: Type (backtrace) to get more information or (debug) to enter the debugger. This doesn't go off the page; but it nearly does. But this is obviously the output of guile. Should I just add a newline between the and debugger? Or would it be preferable to just not indent the output as much? On 8/29/06, Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: percy tiglao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello. I decided to make a print version of the reference manual; but there were so many stuff that ran through the right side of the page (technically, overfull hboxes). I'm interested in helping you guys remove those things so that all the stuff fits on a page; but I'm wondering if there are any standards and such before I start making major changes. Thanks, I'm interested in this too. Does this depend on what paper size you are targetting? Or does Texinfo enforce a particular paper size, so you don't really have a choice? For example: one of the pages had some guile source code with call-with-current-continuation on it. But the word was so big; that it pushed the parameters off the page. The easiest correction is to just change the word into call/cc instead; but that might conflict with your standard... So I'm just wondering if you got anything like that. If not... I'll be working on that documentation patch! From a documentation point of view, I'd say the only principle is that everything has to make sense in its own context. So in this case, call/cc instead of call-with-current-continuation would be fine if either (a) it is noted near the example that call/cc is a common abbreviation for call-with-current-continuation, or (b) the section is sufficiently advanced that it can be assumed all readers would know (a) already. Regards, Neil ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Re: Minor documentation layout flaws
percy tiglao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello. I decided to make a print version of the reference manual; but there were so many stuff that ran through the right side of the page (technically, overfull hboxes). I'm interested in helping you guys remove those things so that all the stuff fits on a page; but I'm wondering if there are any standards and such before I start making major changes. Thanks, I'm interested in this too. Does this depend on what paper size you are targetting? Or does Texinfo enforce a particular paper size, so you don't really have a choice? For example: one of the pages had some guile source code with call-with-current-continuation on it. But the word was so big; that it pushed the parameters off the page. The easiest correction is to just change the word into call/cc instead; but that might conflict with your standard... So I'm just wondering if you got anything like that. If not... I'll be working on that documentation patch! From a documentation point of view, I'd say the only principle is that everything has to make sense in its own context. So in this case, call/cc instead of call-with-current-continuation would be fine if either (a) it is noted near the example that call/cc is a common abbreviation for call-with-current-continuation, or (b) the section is sufficiently advanced that it can be assumed all readers would know (a) already. Regards, Neil ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Minor documentation layout flaws
Hello. I decided to make a print version of the reference manual; but there were so many stuff that ran through the right side of the page (technically, overfull hboxes). I'm interested in helping you guys remove those things so that all the stuff fits on a page; but I'm wondering if there are any standards and such before I start making major changes. For example: one of the pages had some guile source code with call-with-current-continuation on it. But the word was so big; that it pushed the parameters off the page. The easiest correction is to just change the word into call/cc instead; but that might conflict with your standard... So I'm just wondering if you got anything like that. If not... I'll be working on that documentation patch! ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Re: Minor documentation layout flaws
percy tiglao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: overfull hboxes If tex would report them in a form that you could step through it'd be possible to fix the worst ones. call-with-current-continuation on it. But the word was so big; that it pushed the parameters off the page. Thanks, I reformatted a bit. ___ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
