On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 07:06:44PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 06:45:06PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > That reply pertained to the case of a missing menu entry. Your case > > > is the opposite: a superfluous menu entry. > > > > To me, the manual with an entry leading to a node that do not > > corresponds to the sectioning structure is perfectly acceptable. I > > still do not see any issue in having the need to set > > CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE to get warnings. I can't see why the user > > would not want to have a menu that do not follow the sectioning > > structure. > > I have difficulty following the last sentence here. Users may want > to have menus that follow the menu structure if they have existing > Texinfo documents that are structured that way, and they are not > ready or willing to delete all of their @menu blocks to generate all > menus automatically.
Of course, but then they can set CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE on explicitely. My point is that some users may want to have menus that do not follow the sectioning structure, it is perfectly correct, and it seems to me wrong to have warnings, in the default case, for a correct use of @menu. > > To me it was true before, menus were/are as much a list of links as > > structuring commands, and it is even more so today, as now fully > > automatic menus can be obtained with descriptions with @nodedescription. > > Explicit menus are now needed only if one want a structure not following > > the sectioning structure. > > This goes against the practice of the vast majority of existing Texinfo > manuals, so this existing practice should be well supported. I agree that setting CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE on is best for most manuals. However, it would lead to emitting warnings for correct, even if rare cases, which I find very unfortunate. If a user knows that its manual menus are supposed to follow the sectioning structure, then he/she can set CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE on. -- Pat
