> (The correct syntax is "@findex foo" not "@findex{foo} but this is > not the main point.)
Oops, sorry. > This was a deliberate change to make index commands terminate > paragraphs. Well, it stayed completely undocumented... > This was intended for input like the following: [...] so that the > @?index command could precede the @item line they referred to > without being part of the preceding paragraph, and without the need > for an extra blank line in the Texinfo source or Info output. > > Does this change cause a problem? Yes, it does. In LilyPond's Notation Reference, we have a lot of code like the following. ``` @subheading Predefined commands @raggedright @findex \virgula @code{\virgula}, @findex \caesura @code{\caesura}, @findex \divisioMinima @code{\divisioMinima}, @findex \divisioMaior @code{\divisioMaior}, @findex \divisioMaxima @code{\divisioMaxima}, @findex \finalis @code{\finalis}. @end raggedright ``` It's not difficult to rewrite it, but... Is it really only LilyPond's Texinfo manual that uses mid-paragraph index entries, for which this change in `texinfo.tex` is backward-incompatible? Additionally, having `@findex foo` and `@code{foo}` next to each other is beneficial since you can easily see whether an index entry is actually present. Sorry that I missed the relevant discussion on 'bug-texinfo' in January and February. Werner