Karl Berry wrote (on Wed, 7 Aug 2013 at 23:12 GMT): > Surely these people can live with the warnings, or use --no-warn? > > No, people absolutely hate warnings, and absolutely hate using --no-warn.
Really? This position makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to be warned about something that could be a bug in your document? (FWIW, I can find just two instances of such complaints in the bug-texinfo archive, both from the same person as it happens: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2001-12/msg00041.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2006-05/msg00000.html On the other hand, I count at least 4 people asking for _more_ warnings in this case. Small number statistics, I know.) > I don't think users would be at all happy if their documents that have > always run through perfectly well started spewing zillions of (in their > opinions) useless warnings. Well, I'm unhappy (slightly, :)) that texi files that I thought were fine turn out to have subtle bugs in them, which makeinfo could easily have warned me about but didn't. And frankly I think this is a much more rational thing to be unhappy about. > Another point is that many instances of those characters in node names > work fine. It's only sometimes that the parsing is ambiguous. That's why it would be a warning, not an error. (Since as an average Texinfo user I have no way to know which instances will cause a problem and which won't, all I can do is avoid such characters altogether in node names, which is totally fine by me.)
