On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:52:56PM -0600, [email protected] wrote: > > > I saw the problem. I've committed a change that should fix the problem. > > > The new version of texinfo.tex should be at > > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/texinfo/texinfo.tex in a few minutes. > > > > Much thanks! I'll try it out. > > That part's fixed. Much thanks! > > Unfortunately, there's now a different problem (or else I didn't notice > it before). See page vii in the TOC, for Chapter 9: > > 9 Functions ........................................................185 > 9.1 Built-in Functions ...........................................185 > 9.1.1 Calling Built-in Functions .............................185 > 9.1.2 Numeric Functions ......................................186 > 9.1.3 String-Manipulation Functions ..........................187 > 9.1.3.1 More about \ and & with sub(), > gsub(), and gensub()..............................................196 > 9.1.4 Input/Output Functions .................................199 > > It used to produce something like this: > > 9.1.3.1 More about \ and & with sub(), gsub(), and gensub() > ........................................................196 >
This was a deliberate change. I think the new layout looks better. In fact, they both look bad, but the reason for that is that the section title is long, so there isn't a good way to format it. I'm willing to consider changing it back. Do you have arguments why you think the old layout is better? My thinking: new layout has page number in the same row as some of the text in the section title, so it is easier to follow it to the page number. A line with containing only a row of dots breaks up the page visually and is distracting. It looks bad for the end of the section title to be all the way over almost hanging over the page number. The row of dots is not clearly associated with a section title, as there is nothing to the left of it. The only advantage I can see to the former layout is that because it isn't broken across lines, it is easier to read the whole section name. There may have been other considerations which I'm forgetting to mention.
