[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: use directly section childs with sectiontoc, set USE_NODES 0 for HTM
From: |
jai-bholeki |
Subject: |
Re: use directly section childs with sectiontoc, set USE_NODES 0 for HTML |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Nov 2020 15:46:23 +0000 |
> But this would be an argument against changing USE_NODES to 0,
It would mess up the cross references. @node is used to make new
pages in info. Thusly, when I want a reference without having info
make a new page, I use @anchor. Having @node use as cross reference
is much more useful than just making a new page in info. I would
then be against disregarding @node.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 1 November 2020 13:30, Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 12:13:12PM +0000, jai-bholeki wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure how sensible it is to use @section without a @node or vice
> > > versa. A @node without a section wouldn't be in the section toc anyway,
> > > if I understand correctly.
> >
> > @node makes a separate page. If your sections are small, by simply
> > removing @node, you can get the sections together.
>
> That's one thing people may use this for, and I've seen this in real
> documents (much more so than bare @nodes). The @heading commands are also
> there and it's probably the correct way to use those instead. But this
> would be an argument against changing USE_NODES to 0, as I understand that
> this would put each of the sections into a separate file anyway.
Re: use directly section childs with sectiontoc, set USE_NODES 0 for HTML, jai-bholeki, 2020/11/01
Re: use directly section childs with sectiontoc, set USE_NODES 0 for HTML, Patrice Dumas, 2020/11/01