Patrice Dumas <pertu...@free.fr> writes: > It does not solve the case of wanting more than one index entry per > table item.
Hm, that is true. With a little uglification it would work in the GCC case, though (i.e. also emitting @item[x]s for -Wno-... rather than having both the yes and no case index on the same @item). > It looks consistent with the language, but having @-command dynamically > generated is a pain for implementation (other than using @alias or > @macro). For instance, the dynamically generated @-commands for index > obtained from @def[code]index are not practical in many situations in > implementation, though they are practical for the Texinfo writers. Right, fair enough. What about @itable <index code> <item printer>? Since the current indices (and URLs) refer to non-dash-prefixed versions of flags, it might be possible to do something like: @macro gcctabopt{body} @code{-\code\} @end macro @itable op @gccdabopt @item Wpedantic @itemx pedantic etc etc @end itable Can @alias handle opening block commands so that @itable ... can be shortened to just @optable in normal code? This isn't mandatory, but would have the ``practical for writers'' effect. Thanks in advance, and have a great night. -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature