Re: @value, macro and other expansion questions

[Karl Berry]

    expansion in @-commands arguments.

I think I agree with everything, except there is one complication: for
nodes and anchors, there is no question that it would be very useful to
allow some @-commands (especially accents).  Eli more or less
implemented this for makeinfo with --commands-in-node-names.

The problem is TeX.  The complications of getting TeX to expand some
commands within node names., to just the right level, are myriad.  This
is the main reason for the present rule of "no @-commands in node names".

Oleg, if we carefully specified the list of allowed commands in @node
(starting with, say, @'), do you think there's a chance we could make it
work in texinfo.tex?  I haven't looked into it in a long time.

The other processors could conceivably allow other commands.  And your
expansion rules could be followed in the case of
--commands-in-node-names, anyway.

As for the things you marked debatable:

    2 in @-commands taking a filename as argument on the line, namely
      @setfilename, @include and @verbatiminclude
      my personal opinion is that the 

        @value, commands defined by @macro and other @-commands should be 
        expanded, in code_style. 

I definitely agree.  It is nonsensical to do anything but code_style in
filenames.  In fact, I recall recently making a bug fix related to this
in response to a GCC bug report.

    6 I think that everything on a @def* line 

        should have @values and @-command defined by @macros expanded, and, 
        in my opinion, be in code_style. There should only be line @-commands.
        It is not completly clear to me if text within style @-commands that
        are not in code_style, like @var, should be in code_style. 

Again I agree.  There is no use in doing anything but code_style in
@def* lines.

    9 I don't know if @key should be in code_style, but in most cases it
      appears in @kbd and should 'inherit' the code_style.

I don't think the question arises, because keyboard key names never
contain expandable constructs.  Do they?  At least I don't see any on my
US keyboard.  But in principle, I think code_style would be desirable
since again, the user is going to writing literally what should appear
and won't expect Texinfo to be changing it.


Anything else comes up or that I missed, just shout.

Thanks,
Karl