On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 08:54:39PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > 'complete_node_tree_with_menus' is not an easy function to read. > This function, as it is named (complete_node_tree_with_menus) uses > "menu directions" to complete any gaps in node directions, but it also > warns on any mismatches between node directions and menu directions. > > What I would like to change, as a preliminary step before trying to > find better ways of reporting on problems with the node structure, > is to completely separate: > > * Structure checking and warning code > * Code altering the structure.
Looks good to me. The codes are not that dependent, it just reuse a loop. As it is designed now, the checks must be after determining menu directions, as you remarked, but there are no dependency the other ay around as far as I can tell. > It could be possible to write completely new code just checking for > faults, which doesn't rely on "menu directions" at all. (It may not be > clear to the user what "menu directions" are as these are an abstraction > created internally by texi2any.) For example, we could record structural > flaws that involve groups of nodes, and then output all the warnings in > one go, rather than reporting the warnings node-by-node. I would be more cautious about not using "menu directions". To me menu directions are a useful abstraction, which is not internal to texi2any, it is a representation of the tree obtained with menus, it is a property of the Texinfo manual. The checks can probably be done without the menu directions, but my feeling is that it is easier with menu directions. -- Pat
