Re: texinfo.tex - part header in long table of contents

[Gavin Smith]

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:52:56PM -0600, address@hidden wrote:
> > > I saw the problem. I've committed a change that should fix the problem.
> > > The new version of texinfo.tex should be at 
> > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/texinfo/texinfo.tex in a few minutes.
> >
> > Much thanks!  I'll try it out.
> 
> That part's fixed. Much thanks!
> 
> Unfortunately, there's now a different problem (or else I didn't notice
> it before). See page vii in the TOC, for Chapter 9:
> 
>     9 Functions ........................................................185
>       9.1 Built-in Functions ...........................................185
>           9.1.1 Calling Built-in Functions .............................185
>           9.1.2 Numeric Functions ......................................186
>           9.1.3 String-Manipulation Functions ..........................187
>     9.1.3.1 More about \ and & with sub(),
>       gsub(), and gensub()..............................................196
>           9.1.4 Input/Output Functions .................................199
> 
> It used to produce something like this:
> 
>              9.1.3.1 More about \ and & with sub(), gsub(), and gensub()
>                 ........................................................196
> 

This was a deliberate change. I think the new layout looks better. In 
fact, they both look bad, but the reason for that is that the section 
title is long, so there isn't a good way to format it. I'm willing to 
consider changing it back. Do you have arguments why you think the old 
layout is better?

My thinking: new layout has page number in the same row as some of the 
text in the section title, so it is easier to follow it to the page 
number. A line with containing only a row of dots breaks up the page 
visually and is distracting. It looks bad for the end of the section 
title to be all the way over almost hanging over the page number.  The 
row of dots is not clearly associated with a section title, as there is 
nothing to the left of it.

The only advantage I can see to the former layout is that because it 
isn't broken across lines, it is easier to read the whole section name.

There may have been other considerations which I'm forgetting to 
mention.