Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055)

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> 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