On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:59 AM Patrice Dumas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:35:01PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > Currently yes. But indeed, it would be natural in that case to follow > > > @deffn by @defvarx. I think that it would not be hard to implement > that > > > in texi2any, but I am not sure that we want to have that possibility in > > > the Texinfo language. > > > > What would be wrong with it? > > I don't know, but if it is not already in the language, it may be > because there could be some issues. > I personally find it kind of weird to mix deffn and defvrx in the same block. If I were writing this from scratch, I would have separated them. But this is a conversion of an old Scribe doc, so that's way too much effort. I might just do @defun @end defun @defvar <description> @end defvar to get the entries into the right index and still have it look as if they're together as in the original doc. This is mostly busy work. Oh, and for the record, look at https://cmucl.common-lisp.dev/doc/encycmuclopedia/devenv/cim.ps for the original Scribe version. Look at the bottom of page 7. For the conversion, see the bottom of page 6 of https://cmucl.common-lisp.dev/docs/hem/cim/cim.pdf just so the various bits are in the correct index. > > -- > Pat > -- Ray
