FWIW I search the info for the string until I hit the description. What I have been in need of recently is knowing when they first appeared. That can be done with git or manual archeology but if it was a standard part of documenting an option, that might e useful to more than just me.
--Joel RTEMS On Sun, Oct 26, 2025, 2:54 PM Sandra Loosemore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/26/25 13:31, Arsen Arsenović wrote: > > Sandra Loosemore <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> OK. I'm personally more likely to use the direct link from the option > index to > >> look up docs for a particular option I already know the name of and/or > the PDF > >> document instead of chunked HTML, but if other people use the option > summary + > >> text search then I will of course continue to support that usage. > >> > >> BTW, I did take a quick look earlier at whether I could make the > entries in the > >> "Option Summary" also link directly to the docs for that option, but I > didn't > >> see an obvious way to do it with basic Texinfo usage. It might require > some > >> devious knowledge of Texinfo internals and/or dependencies on newer > versions of > >> Texinfo that have better HTML support and/or postprocessing of the HTML > output, > >> and for now I put that aside while trying to fill in docs for options > that > >> presently have none. > > > > There isn't a good way in any case AFAIU (though Gavin might know better > > on the Texinfo MLs); it'd require creating @anchors at each point and > > then manually @link-ing. I think it'd be best to replace the section > > with a link to the option index personally (and, if we're talking about > > this, I've wanted to go through the option index to make all options > > documented in positive and negative form, and with dashes in front so > > that all shapes of flags someone might think of receive indices). > > The work I'm presently doing is for PR122242 and PR122243 -- so indexing > both positive and negative forms is in the plan already, along with > regularizing the form that's listed in the option summary. Where I've > gotten bogged down is in finding that there are hundreds of options that > are either not documented at all, or are not presently listed (in either > the positive or negative form, if they have one) in at least one of the > three places where they ought to be: the option summary, the detailed > documentation, and the index. E.g. among other patches in my stack > already I'm presently working on one that adds docs for 67 options with > names starting with "--" that are almost all aliases for other options. > > -Sandra >
