Re: @value, macro and other expansion questions

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 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. 
> 
>   It is certainly debatable, and not what is done currently.
> 
> 3 in @-commands with braces, with args being filenames or url, like 
>   @email first arg, @image first and last (extension) arg, @uref first
>   arg, @indicateurl, and also in @-commands formatting code, that is
>   @code, @command, @env, @file, @kbd, @option, @samp:
> 
>     @value, commands defined by @macro and other @-commands should be 
>     expanded, in code_style.

In fact I can't see the need for any other @-command in such cases, than
@@, @}, @{ to produce those characters, and protect from @-commands
expansion, of @/, and maybe @*, to embed an end of line in the file name. All 
the characters that make up a file name should be available in the
documentencoding, otherwise the person wouldn't be able to type the file 
name in the first place in the system, so I can't even see a need for
accented characters. 


So maybe we could state that those @-commands (@@, @}, @{, @*) produce
the corresponding characters, @/ is removed, and other regular @-command 
expansion result is unspecified. (and I will certainly implement that 
in texi2html in the same way than I do text for comments corrresponding 
with @copying and put at the beginning of the file).


So this would become:


     @value, commands defined by @macro should be expanded, in code_style,
     @{ would be replaced by {, @} by }, @@ by @ and @* by a newline.
     @/ is treated as explained in the manual.
     The result of other @-commands expansion is unspecified.

Does that looks good?

--
Pat