[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Generalising @def*
From: |
Gavin Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Generalising @def* |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Feb 2023 20:16:17 +0000 |
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 08:11:22PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:59:07AM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> >
> > I've commited changes to texinfo.tex to introduce @defblock, @deflinex
> > and @deftypelinex. @deflinex is like @deffnx and @deftypelinex is like
> > @deftypefnx. The names of these could change, for example to remove the 'x'
> > at the end of the commands, if we decide this would be better.
> >
> > I believe this covers usage for @defvr, @deftypevr, @deftp.
> >
> > I have gone off the idea of using @macro for this. I am thinking a
> > more limited command would be better, as mentioned in an earlier message
> >
> > @newdef defbuiltin = typed, tt, Built-in Function, fn
> >
> > or similar. This would cover the basics and be easy to use and understand.
> > The example here would translate a @defbuiltin line to a @deftypelinex line
> > within a @defblock.
>
> I do not like that, as this adds commands that are not in the language
> and it is always a pain. I liked the generic command + separate index
> entries, that could be grouped with @macro better.
OK, I know that dynamically updating command lists or handling
command macro expansion can add a lot of complexity to texi2any.
The next step now is probably to add @defblock to texi2any.
I still don't think that
@defMac{macro1, (arg1@comma{} arg2)}
is a very good syntax, though. Maybe we could come back to this.