On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: > > > But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want > > > documentation that is accesible from inside lyx. > > IMHO, we need both, a short description for tooltips or the status line > and a full description with markup and links etc. > > > Sure, but I was really wondering about what markup to use in the actual > > description. When you say emacs' "describe-function", are you referring to > > how a function is typically described, or the *markup* that's used... > > The short description should be in the source (precisely, it should be > possible to generate it from the data in the source) so that something > like "describe-function" (which is what the old "apropos" function should > be called BTW) could give a short help. > > IMHO, the short description doesnot need any markup. (And if a see-also > should be contained in the Synopsis (I would put See Also only in the > full doc), an extraction script could easily convert a lfun-name to a > link.)
Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long and the short descriptions diverging? > The full description should use LyX markup (as we are all LyX users). It > could be a "revived" and improved References.lyx document or a separate > lyx file for every lfun. (see attachment for example). I see, a separate LyX document for the lfuns (partially generated). Would there be one such document for each language? Anyway, I think the way forward now is simply to start compiling the raw information... Eh... did you have an "up-to-date" list of lfuns btw? /Christian -- Christian Ridderstr�m, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
