Patrice Dumas <[email protected]> writes: > It does not solve the case of wanting more than one index entry per > table item.
Hm, that is true. With a little uglification it would work in the GCC
case, though (i.e. also emitting @item[x]s for -Wno-... rather than
having both the yes and no case index on the same @item).
> It looks consistent with the language, but having @-command dynamically
> generated is a pain for implementation (other than using @alias or
> @macro). For instance, the dynamically generated @-commands for index
> obtained from @def[code]index are not practical in many situations in
> implementation, though they are practical for the Texinfo writers.
Right, fair enough. What about @itable <index code> <item printer>?
Since the current indices (and URLs) refer to non-dash-prefixed versions
of flags, it might be possible to do something like:
@macro gcctabopt{body}
@code{-\code\}
@end macro
@itable op @gccdabopt
@item Wpedantic
@itemx pedantic
etc etc
@end itable
Can @alias handle opening block commands so that @itable ... can be
shortened to just @optable in normal code? This isn't mandatory, but
would have the ``practical for writers'' effect.
Thanks in advance, and have a great night.
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
