Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:24:06PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Again: I don't see that Texinfo behavior precludes us from writing >> consistent input. Mapping this input to current Texinfo behavior is a >> matter of redefining a macro then. > > I don't see how this can be done with a macro, but I'm quite > willing to believe that I don't know enough texinfo. AFAIK > @cindex \foo > adds "\foo" to the index. Is there any way we could write > @cindex \foo foo > to mean "sort this in location 'foo', but print out '\foo'" ? or > even better, automatically redefine > @cindex \foo > to remove any backslash from the sort-order but still print the > backslash?
We have @funindex, our own macro. If we use this (or something else) consistently without backslash, the macro definition can, for now, add the backslash back. >> Looking at the Texinfo source, it would appear that the main makeinfo >> engine uses the locale-aware system sorting routines, so it is >> conceivable that calling Texinfo with a suitable LC_COLLATE setting >> might do the trick on systems having locales supporting this kind of >> order. > > ... no clue what LC_COLLATE is. > > Anyway, if you can produce a proof-of-concept demonstration of > \foo being sorted in any index without the backslash, then I'll > gladly organize a policy discussion on exactly how we want to > write the index entries, and exactly how we want the index(es) to > look. I am not exactly interested in having a fight over this. I merely volunteered information. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
