> From: Gavin Smith <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 18:52:29 +0100 > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 10:23:14PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 07:58:42PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2026 at 03:26:02PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > > > > That should be ok, as long as we avoid creating shadow targets if > > > > > there > > > > > is an associated node (my patch to texinfo.tex avoided this). Then > > > > > outputting a warning won't affect many existing manuals. > > > > > > > > I have implemented the changes we discussed about. > > > > > > Is there any way to get nodes added for lone sectioning commands rather > > > than anchors? > > > > > > I tried running texi2any with "-c USE_NODES=0" but it made no difference. > > > Is there any way to configure this with USE_NODES or other variable? > > > > Yes, with > > -c TREE_TRANSFORMATIONS=insert_nodes_for_sectioning_commands > > > > I previously wanted to add another value for USE_NODES, but in the end > > using "-c TREE_TRANSFORMATIONS=insert_nodes_for_sectioning_commands" > > seems best to me. The real question is whether we should make is the > > default. In that case, maybe we could add a customization variable to > > avoid doing it. > > I'd like to make it the default. > > In my testing, the results of insert_nodes_for_sectioning_commands look ok, > although don't match exactly what I implemented in texinfo.tex. In those > cases, texi2any issues warnings so at least users will be aware there is > a problem.
What about the @detailmenu used by large manuals? E.g., Emacs uses it in 2 of its manuals. This menu includes all the nodes from the entire manual, but the automatically-generated nodes will be absent from there, won't they? There's also the issue of stuff that can appear in section names, but is not recommended for node names (colons, Texinfo commands, etc.). More generally, I don't understand why it would be a good idea to make this the default. It is a useful feature, but why make it the default? Is the intent to invite authors of the Texinfo manuals not to name the nodes?
