On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:49:34PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> My current work is at the bottom of the email. This will need more testing
> and also implementing in the XS parser, so it will take me at least few days
> to
> finish.
It could also be a tree transformation that is applied after the
tree parsing.
> The idea is to put the index entries in the 'table_term' element rather
> than 'table_item', and in the transformation in Texinfo::Common,
> to reorder inside table_term to put index entries first, taking the
> first index entry that occurs as the copiable anchor. So
>
> @table @asis
> @item -Wpedantic
> @itemx -pedantic
> @vindex pedantic
> @vindex Wpedantic
> @vindex Wno-pedantic
> aaaaa
>
> bbb
> @end table
>
> produces
>
> <dl class="table">
> <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-Wpedantic"></a>
> <a class="index-entry-id" id="index-Wno_002dpedantic"></a>
> <dt id='index-pedantic'><span>-Wpedantic<a class="copiable-link"
> href='#index-pe
> dantic'> ¶</a></span></dt>
> <dt>-pedantic</dt>
> <dd><p>aaaaa
> </p>
> <p>bbb
> </p></dd>
> </dl>
>
> Does this seem ok?
The repositioning of index entries look ok, but automatically
associating one to the table_term does not look clearly ok to me. In
some cases it could what the user wanted, but in other cases not. I
think that it would be better to separate the issue of index entries
repositioning from the issue of having a table command associated to
another index type, and to have an index entry not matching the @item
argument.
Could be for example
@itable
@item v, pedantic, -pedantic
@end itable
To have the 'pedantic' variable index entry associated with the
'-pedantic' table term label. Instead of @item, it could be another
command, like @itemindex, so something like
@itable @code
@itemindex v, pedantic, -pedantic
@itemindexx op, -Wpedantic@comma{} option, -Wpedantic
description
@end itable
--
Pat
