Re: wishlist: implicit anchor for @deffn etc

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Gavin Smith <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:59:13 +0000
> Cc: Texinfo <address@hidden>
> 
> Do you think it should be generated for all index entries or just for
> index entries from @def* commands? What would be the benefit of only
> doing it for @def* commands?

IMO, if we are going to have such a feature, it should be a new
command, like @defunidx or somesuch.  It makes little sense to produce
gobs of anchors in manuals that don't have any uses for them.  The
@def commands produce index entries, and the usual way to find them
quickly is to type "i FUNCTION" in the Info reader, which is almost as
fast as following an explicit cross-reference.

Btw, I understand that the Info format will not really benefit from
this, because an Info reader can easily find the function if the @ref
uses 2 arguments rather than just one.  So I guess we are asked to
introduce Texinfo features that benefit HTML.

> > The exact form of these generated anchors is open.  I like the form
> > CATEGORY:NAME as it's relatively readable and easy to type; unlikely to
> > clash
> > with other node names or anchors; and does not clash with other definitions
> > of the same NAME but different CATEGORY.
> 
> That seems like valid reasoning to me. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Using a colon is not a good idea, IMO: the Texinfo manual explicitly
warns against using it in node names, for similar reasons.