[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: menu and sectioning consistency warning too strict?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: menu and sectioning consistency warning too strict? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:03:30 +0300 |
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:57:19 +0200
> From: Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr>
>
> With CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE set to 1, there is a warning by
> texi2any:
>
> a.texi:10: warning: node `node after chap1' is next for `chap1' in menu but
> not in sectioning
>
> for the following code:
>
> @node Top
> @top top
>
> @menu
> * chap1::
> * node after chap1::
> @end menu
>
> @node chap1
> @chapter Chapter 1
>
> @node node after chap1,, chap1, Top
AFAIU, the warning tells you that @chapter is missing in node after
chap1.
> I am not sure that this warning is warranted, this code seems ok to
> me, the lone node is not fully consistent with the sectioning structure,
> but not that inconsistent either.
I don't think I agree, since @chapter is missing in the second node.
> If there is another chapter after the lone node, there are two warnings,
> but this seems ok to me, as in that case, there is a clearer
> inconsistency, since with sectioning there is this time a different next:
>
> b.texi:10: warning: node next pointer for `chap1' is `chap2' but next is
> `node after chap1' in menu
> b.texi:15: warning: node prev pointer for `chap2' is `chap1' but prev is
> `node after chap1' in menu
Which again tells you the same: @chapter is missing in node after
chap1.
> Should I try to remove the warning with a lone node at the end?
IMO, no, not unless you replace it with a smarter warning that
explicitly says @chapter is missing in the second node.