RE: Why doesn't Info `T' cache node tree for current file?

[Drew Adams]

> > I understand that the TOC built depends on the current Info 
> > file, but I'm wondering why the node list (tree) for a given
> > Info file isn't kept around, to avoid rebuilding it each
> > time a user hits `T'.
> 
> AFAIK, Info doesn't maintain the node structure (it doesn't need to be
> a tree, btw, it could be a graph) in memory at all.  It doesn't need
> to, except for Info-toc.  So if you are suggesting that the results of
> Info-toc should be stashed away waiting for the user to invoke
> Info-toc again for the same Info file, then maybe we should do it;

Yes, that's what I was thinking of.
But I was just wondering why it isn't done. "Could", not  "should".

> otherwise, generating the node graph just so TOC would be created
> faster is IMO not a good idea.

Right. No, I was thinking of the former - to avoid rebuilding.

> Btw, I can understand why whoever wrote Info-toc didn't save the
> resulting buffer: Info always throws away the (sub-)file when it
> switches to another, and *toc* is treated the same way.  So it fits
> better into the overall code structure, whereby a file is visited (in
> this case, generated out of thin air), displayed, then its buffer
> discarded.

I was thinking more of saving the node list (result of Info-build-toc) than the
buffer. It could be discarded when you visit another Info file, instead of
immediately.

Actually, `T' seems to create the TOC buffer quite quickly. I'm a bit surprised,
when I look at the code. It seems like it would not be so quick.