Re: Index format problem

[Jeff Kingston]

James,

I'm not sure why the comma would ever have gone away.  A quick look
through file dsf shows it hard-wired into the system, at line 4603:

    else @Yield { @Body &"0.03fu" address@hidden ,} pgrange }

At this point, @Body stands for the index label, and pgrange stands
for the page number, or page number range, and there is a hard-wired
comma in between them.

I doubt if it would be fruitful to look into the history.  I would
start by getting rid of this comma and seeing what happens.  For
the longer term I could look at adding an @IndexSeparator option,
value , by default, so that those who don't want it can get rid
of it.

There are problems here merging multiple index entries with the
same labels, the coding is delicate and needs careful testing.
I think that is probably why it says "address@hidden ,}" rather than
the apparently simpler and equivalent ",".

I'll be away from tomorrow for a week.

Jeff


On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 12:19:17AM +0000, James, Voyle E CTR (US) wrote:
> Hello Lout Users,
> 
> We have just noticed a difference in our indexes from June 2010,
> March 2011, and January 2012...