On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, David Bjergaard <dbjerga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The complexity reduction is one of the benefits which I see in this.
>> There is also the fact that by editing `stumpwm.tex.in', sometimes it is
>> not clear how the manual will turn up because there is still the
>> processing part.
> The with this is that having them coupled does not increase the
> complexity of the workflow:
> 1. edit stumpwm.texi.in (usually to explain pedagogy)
> 2. type "make"
> 3. Read the resulting manual
> 4. Rinse and repeat.
>
> The new proposed work flow would be exactly the same, the only
> difference being that lisp would never be involved in making the
> stumpwm.texi file.
I wanted to share two things that I think might help here.
First, in Emacs when editing a .texi file you can run M-x
makeinfo-buffer and it will show the rendered info page in *info*.
With stumpwm.texi.in this won't do the processing step, but it can be
made to work I believe by customizing the variable
makeinfo-run-command to run something that foo_INFOPTS command in
Makefile.
Second, I wrote this command to render the docstring at point as
texinfo and display it in *info*.
(require 'thingatpt)
(defun jsj-render-docstring-as-texinfo ()
"Render the docstring at point in an *info* buffer."
(interactive)
(save-excursion
(while (in-string-p)
(backward-char))
(let ((docstring (thing-at-point 'sexp))
(file (make-temp-file "texinfo")))
(with-temp-file file
(insert "@setfilename " file " \n"
"@node Top\n")
(insert docstring))
(find-file file)
(makeinfo-buffer))))
Cheers,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
