bug-texinfo
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: texi2dvi: More functions


From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: texi2dvi: More functions
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:35:24 +0100


Le 20 janv. 05, à 20:25, Karl Berry a écrit :

Hi Akim,

Hi Karl,

    reading $TEXINPUTS helped

I have no problem with reporting $TEXINPUTS after absolutification, but
I have some questions about other parts of the patch:

(1) do we really gain that much by making verbose a function?  I guess
    $0 might be helpful in the output, although you could also argue
    that it is additional noise.

Actually, I should have reduced it to basename.  But since it is
uncommon to run texi2dvi by hand, and common to have it part of
a Makefile, or script, I think it's better to sign the messages.
But I won't make a big fuss about this :)

(2) I'm not sure verbose output should go to stderr.

Hm, I do.  Tracing is not actual output.  Anything that is not
actual output should go onto stderr IMHO.  Including for programs
that have no actual stdout output, such as texi2dvi.

(3) I was under the possibly erroneous impression that
funcname ()
{
  is not sufficiently portable.
}

On Libtool they made the same move, so I guess it is sufficiently
portable.  What is not is using the keyword function.


that is, the { has to be on the same line (or the newline escaped by a \). I'm sure this was true at one time, although I can't say any more what
  version of what system I was using.

ISTR that texi2dvi, before my change, already had functions
declared this way.  I don't really care, if you prefer
the other one, feel free to make it uniform the other way.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]