On 7/1/21 5:44 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
From: Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:14:30 +0200
If I understand the notes correct, the '.' should be also hidden by e.g. Emacs.
No, it doesn't. The actual text in the Info file is:
*note -std: f.‘=iso9899:1990’
and the period after " f" isn't hidden. Where does that "f" come from
and what is its purpose here? can it be removed (together with the
period)?
It's name of the anchor used for the @ref. The names are automatically generated
by makeinfo. So there's an example:
This is the warning level of @ref{e,,-Wshift-overflow3} and …
becomes in info:
This is the warning level of *note -Wshift-overflow3: e. and …
I can ask the question at Sphinx, the Emacs script should hide that.
Emacs doesn't hide the period. But there shouldn't be a period to
begin with, since it's the middle of a sentence. The correct way of
writing this in Texinfo is to have some punctuation: a comma or a
semi-colon, after the closing brace, like this:
This is the warning level of @ref{e,,-Wshift-overflow3}, and …
I don't see why we should put a comma after an option reference.
Does Sphinx somehow generate the period if there's no comma, or does
it do it unconditionally, i.e. even if there is a punctuation after
the closing brace?
It's all related to Texinfo. Sphinx generates e.g.
Enabled by @ref{7,,-Wall} and something else.
as documented here:
https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/_0040ref.html
Then it ends with the following info output:
Enabled by *note -Wall: 7. and something else.
So the period is added by Texinfo. If I put comma after a reference, then
the period is not added there.
This actually raises a more general issue with this Sphinx porting
initiative: what will be the canonical style guide for maintaining the
GCC manual in Sphinx, or more generally for writing GNU manuals in
Sphinx? For Texinfo, we have the Texinfo manual, which both documents
the language and provides style guidelines for how to use Texinfo for
producing good manuals. Contributors to GNU manuals are using those
guidelines for many years. Is there, or will there be, an equivalent
style guide for Sphinx? If not, how will the future contributors to
the GCC manuals know what are the writing and style conventions?
No, I'm not planning any extra style guide. We will you standard Sphinx RST
manual and one can find many tutorials about how to do it.
Are you sure everything there is good for our manuals? Did you
compare the style conventions there with what we have in the Texinfo
manual?
I'm not sure, but I made the conversion from Texinfo as close as possible to
RST files.
I see the documentation markup natural and it matches with we write
documentation
in Texinfo.
Moreover, this means people who contribute to other manuals will now
have to learn two different styles, no? And that's in addition to
learning one more language.
Yes, people will have to learn RST. Similarly to git conversion, people also
had to learn another version control system (we used svn).
That is why I recommended to discuss this on the Texinfo list: that's
the place where such guidelines are discussed, and where we have
experts who understand the effects and consequences of using this or
that style. The current style in GNU manuals is to have the menus as
we see them in the existing GCC manuals: with a short description.
Maybe there are good reasons to deviate from that style, but
shouldn't this be at least presented and discussed, before the
decision is made? GCC developers are not the only ones who will be
reading the future GCC manuals.
That seems to me a subtle adjustment and it's standard way how people generate
TOC in Sphinx. See e.g. the Linux kernel documentation:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/
I don't think the GCC manuals should necessarily be bound by the
Sphinx standards. Where those standards are sub-optimal, it is
perfectly okay for GCC (and other projects) to deviate. GCC and other
GNU manuals used a certain style and convention for decades, so
there's more than enough experience and tradition to build on.
What type of conversions and style are going to change with conversion to
Sphinx?
Do you see any of them worse than what we have now?
I will no longer pursue this point, but let me just say that I
consider it a mistake to throw away all the experience collected using
Texinfo just because Sphinx folks have other traditions and
conventions. It might be throwing the baby with the bathwater.
Again, please show up concrete examples. What you describe is very theoretical.
Thanks,
Martin
