On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 12:32:22PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Indeed, if the quoting is stripped, this is difficult. One option, > maybe, could be to add the current manual as a leading manual, I have > seen that when testing some commands with the standalone Info reader, > such that the reference becomes, for example (if in the f.info manual): > (f)(toto)titi > instead of > (toto)titi > > > Moreover, I don't see how such node names can be supported > > consistently in any Info reader, because at least when the user tells > > the reader to go to a node by name, typing "(foo)bar" at the reader's > > prompt _must_ be interpreted as node "bar" inside file "foo", or else > > we will break compatibility with a long-standing tradition in Info > > usage. > > I tested with the standalone Info reader, and indeed g and G do not work > with a parenthesized name, or, rather, it is proposed for completion, > but interpreted as an external node, as you say. However, it works well > in for all the other commands I tested, such as m, f, M-TAB, i. > > > And it's unreasonable to ask the user to type the quoting > > characters to prevent such interpretation. > > I tried to add DEL with C-q in the standalone Info reader, and it did > not seem to work. Regardless, I agree that it is unreasonable to ask > the user to type the quoting characters (but it could still have > worked, can be useful for testing). > > I tried > g(f)(toto)titi > and it works, but there is no completion. > > > So I think we do not need to support such node names. If some manual > > uses them, they are on their own. > > My feeling is that with the standalone Info reader, it is not so bad. I > do not thing that G is often used, not having the possibility to go to > some node with g without prepending the manual name is clearly annoying. > Yet, it is not a show stopper in my opinion. > > Let see what Gavin says. >
I think the meaning of the quoted node names in Info format is clear enough, even if it is difficult to support them in Info browsers. I don't think we should make the output more complicated to support such node names, by adding the manual name as you suggest as a possibility. I just don't think it would help - quoted node names themselves are an obscure complication and then sometimes adding a manual name as well would be an even more obscure complication layered on top. It would only cause problems in the future when anyone comes back to review this area of the Texinfo language. We never said they were supported before and this is not a problem that we have to solve. We just have to accept that node names such as "(foo)bar" are unlikely to work absolutely correctly in readers. It seems that they would be inaccessible with the g command in standalone Info. There may be ameleriorations that can be made over time in the Info readers if people do want to use such node names (for example allowing typing DEL in the g prompt somehow, or providing alternative commands to load nodes in the same manual only).
