Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote: > May I ask why you need to have these characters in node names? > > Node names are just labels; they don't need to be as meaningful as > section names. So it's legitimate to make a node's name be a shortened > version of the corresponding section's name, and remove those special > characters in the process. What exactly would suffer from such > shortening?
In my case, node names may represent any Common Lisp symbol, which can be composed of any possible character whatsoever. Any kind of shortening may entail name clashes. Plus, like I said, any kind of node name tweak (which I'm doing right now) makes it impossible to cut'n paste it, and in general makes it less readable / explicit. Since there is already a solution for coping with more universal node names, I'd like to see it more supported rather than removed. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info
