new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

[Simon Josefsson]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:

> Hi Simon,
>
>     Is the intention that even the address@hidden cases should be
>     replaced?  Then what purpose is the @acronym keyword for?
>
> I wrote about that earlier.  Minor typographic change which is rarely
> used in GNU manuals.  De facto standard is not to use it.  Which is
> also simpler in the source.  To try to use it consistently/everywhere
> leads into deep waters (I have to do this in my TeX editorial life,
> and it is exceedingly time-consuming).  And it can't be used in node
> names in any case, so there will always be inconsistencies.  Do we
> have to keep going with this?

Thanks for explaining Karl.  I noticed several uses of @acronym in some
of my projects (mostly @acronym{GNU} and @acronym{POSIX}).  A gnulib
syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization across
GNU packages.  How about the patch below?

/Simon

diff --git a/top/maint.mk b/top/maint.mk
index d2248d8..67421f2 100644
--- a/top/maint.mk
+++ b/top/maint.mk
@@ -561,6 +561,13 @@ sc_GFDL_version:
        @re='$(_GFDL_regexp)' msg='GFDL vN, N!=3'                       \
          $(_prohibit_regexp)
 
+# Don't use Texinfo @acronym{} as it is not a good idea.
+sc_texinfo_acronym:
+       @grep -nE '@acronym{'                                           \
+           $$($(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -E '\.texi$$') &&               \
+         { echo '$(ME): found use of Texinfo @acronym{}' 1>&2;         \
+           exit 1; } || :
+
 cvs_keywords = \
   Author|Date|Header|Id|Name|Locker|Log|RCSfile|Revision|Source|State