Re: @node in TeX ignored if not associated with a sectioning command

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:50:47PM -0400, Karl Berry wrote:
>     In my opinion, @node should be treated similarly with an @anchor, so a
>     lone mode should not be problematic.
> 
> Well, it could be done (though it's not exactly trivial), but I'm not
> sure I agree.  @anchor was invented precisely to mark an arbitary
> location that can be referred to.  I don't see particular usefulness in
> doing the same with @node.  Especially since it has never worked and no
> one has ever asked for it.  Am I missing something?

An @node is different from an @anchor in general, as it determines a
splitting of the document when split at nodes.  For TeX, in my opinion, 
@node and @anchor should be the almost the same (maybe with the difference
that an @anchor applies to where it is while a @node applies to the next
sectioning command), but in general, letting the user choose between a 
node and an anchor is better in my opinion.

> As for the manual, I don't think it explicitly addressed this question.
> I rewrote the paragraph at the end of the "node" node (not committed
> yet):
> 
>   @TeX{} uses @code{@@node} names and chapter-structuring names in
>   combination in the output for cross references.  For this reason, you
>   must write @code{@@node} lines in a Texinfo file that you intend to

Here I would prefer can instead of must, and @anchor may be used too:

    can write @code{@@node} lines in a Texinfo file that you intend to

>   format for printing, even if you do not intend to format it for Info;
>   and conversely, you must include a chapter-structuring command after a
>   node for it to be a valid cross-reference target.  

If that's a limitation that cannot be removed, then this is correct,
although I would have preferred it not to have been needed.

>   You can use
>   @code{@@anchor} (@pxref{anchor,, @code{@@anchor}}) to make
>   cross-references to an arbitrary position in a document.  (Cross
>   references, such as the one at the end of this sentence, are made with
>   @code{@@xref} and related commands; see @ref{Cross References}.)
> 
> It's too complicated, but I think that's the information we want to
> convey.
> 
> I'd suggest having makeinfo warn when it encounters a reference to a
> node without a chapter-structuring command, but I guess that would
> effectively disallow documents with only nodes, which doesn't seem like
> a good idea.

Exactly.  And it also disallow documents with node only portions, that are,
in my opinion, correct.

It could be possible to have a warning when there is a lone node that is
also the target of a cross ref.  But it would be even better to have
this warning triggered only in a mode where TeX related warnings are
triggered...

-- 
Pat